Business Law Essay

I have to write a summary and analyze on the case Horne v. Department of agriculture.

86
Part 1: Elements of Law and the Judicial Process
OF THE
HORNE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Supreme Court 135 S.Ct. 2419 (2015)
ME
175
SUVAS
Case Background Federal law allows the Secretary
of Agriculture to issue “marketing orders” to help
maintain stable markets for certain agricultural prod-
ucts. A marketing order for raisins established a
Raisin Administrative Committee that could require
raisin growers to set aside (reserve) a percentage of
their crop without receiving payment. The raisins are
often destroyed. By reducing the supply, the price could
be kept higher. In 2002-03 raisin growers were
required to give the government 47 percent of their
crop. The Hornes refused, contending this was an
unconstitutional taking of their property for public use
without just compensation.
The government fined the Hornes $680,000 for
refusing to obey the regulation. The Hornes sought
relief in federal court but the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held the regulation was valid because personal
property, such as raisins, receives little constitutional
protection. If the Hornes did not like the regulation,
they could plant crops other than raisins, such as
grapes to make wine. They appealed.
The reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin
Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual rai-
sins are transferred from the growers to the
Government….
Raisin growers subject to the reserve requirement
thus lose the entire “bundle” of property rights in the
appropriated raisins,“the rights to possess, use and
dispose of” them…. The Government contends that
the reserve requirement is not a taking because
raisin growers voluntarily choose to participate in
the raisin market. According to the Government, if
raisin growers don’t like it, they can “plant different
crops,” or “sell their raisin-variety grapes as table
grapes or for use in juice or wine.” Brief for
Respondent 32 (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
“Let them sell wine” is probably not much more
comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts
have been to others throughout history. In any event,
the Government is wrong as a matter of law….
Selling produce in interstate commerce, although
certainly subject to reasonable government regulation,
is similarly not a special governmental benefit that the
Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the
waiver of constitutional protection. Raisins are not
dangerous pesticides; they are a healthy snack….
The Hornes should simply be relieved of the
obligation to pay the fine and associated civil pen-
alty they were assessed when they resisted the
Government’s effort to take their raisins. This case,
in litigation for more than a decade, has gone on
long enough.
The judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
Case Decision Roberts, Chief Justice
***
The Takings Clause provides: “Nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. It protects
“private property” without any distinction between
different types. The principle reflected in the
Clause goes back at least 800 years to Magna Carta,
which specifically protected agricultural crops from
uncompensated takings. Clause 28 of that charter
forbade any “constable or other bailiff” from taking
“corn or other provisions from any one without
immediately tendering money therefor, unless he
can have postponement thereof by permission of
the seller.”
The colonists brought the principles of Magna
Carta with them to the New World, including that
charter’s protection against uncompensated takings
of personal property….
Questions for Analysis
1. If the marketing orders kept raisin prices high,
would not the higher income to growers from sales
be an adequate benefit to justify the regulation?
2. Why would the government want to keep the price
of raisins high?