In a victory for private property, the Supreme Court decided in a eight-to-one decision today that the federal government cannot compel raisin growers to hand over their “excess” raisins to the state without just compensation.
Horne v. Department of Agriculture involved the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, a price-support system. Under a “Marketing Order,” raisin growers forfeited a certain amount of their production in order to reduce the amount of raisins in supply on the market, thus artificially increasing the price of raisins. The New Deal-era throwback was intended to stabilize the price of raisins in the case that there was an “off’ year for growers.
Marvin and Laura Horne were fined approximately $700,000 for refusing to comply with the order. The Hornes sued the federal government, arguing the regulation violates the Fifth Amendment protection against "takings" without "just compensation."
According to the Court’s decision, which was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito in full, and in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan:
"The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking—it does not mean the raisins have not been appropriated for Government use. Nor can the Government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce."
The Supreme Court also declared, "The Fifth Amendment applies to personal property as well as real property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a fully dissenting opinion, arguing that, as long as the government doesn't take away ALL the Horne's property rights, it's not doing anything wrong:
"Because the Order does not deprive the Hornes of all of their property rights, it does not effect a per se taking."