Horne v. Department of Agriculture facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Horne v. Department of Agriculture |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 20, 2013 (Horne I) Reargued April 22, 2015 (Horne II) Decided June 10, 2013 (Horne I); June 22, 2015 (Horne II), |
|
| Full case name | Marvin D. Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture |
| Docket nos. | 12-123 |
| Citations | 569 U.S. 513 (more)
133 S. Ct. 2053; 186 L. Ed. 2d 69; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4357; 81 U.S.L.W. 4367 (2013)
135 S. Ct. 2419; 192 L. Ed. 2d 388; 83 U.S.L.W. 4503 |
| Prior history | Summary judgment for defendants, No. 1:08-cv-01549, 2009 WL 4895362, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115464 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009), aff'd, lack of jurisdiction found, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2012). |
| Subsequent history | No takings, 750 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2014), rev'd, 576 U.S. __ (2015) ("Horne II") |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion Announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| Horne I: The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide petitioners' takings claim Horne II: The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property |
|
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by unanimous (Horne I) |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan (Parts I and II) (Horne II) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (Horne II) |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan (Horne II) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor (Horne II) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V., Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Tucker Act | |
Horne v. Department of Agriculture was a pair of important cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases helped explain that the government must pay people fairly when it takes their personal belongings, just like it must pay when it takes land or buildings.
The cases started because of a rule about raisins. A farmer named Marvin Horne didn't want to give part of his raisin crop to the government. He argued that this rule was unfair. In the first case, Horne I, the Supreme Court said that Horne had the right to sue the government over this rule. In the second case, Horne II, the Court decided that the raisin rule was unconstitutional. This meant the government couldn't take people's raisins without paying them.
Contents
Background of the Raisin Rule
The National Raisin Reserve
During the Great Depression in the 1930s, the price of raisins dropped a lot. To help farmers, Congress passed a law called the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA). This law allowed the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create rules. These rules could require farmers to keep some of their crops off the market. The goal was to make prices go up so farmers could earn more money.
The USDA created the National Raisin Reserve. A group called the Raisin Administrative Committee managed this reserve. This committee was made up of people from the raisin industry. They decided each year how many raisins farmers had to put into the reserve. Farmers could sell the rest of their raisins freely.
The Raisin Committee often collected a large part of the raisin crop. Sometimes, nearly half of all raisins grown went into the reserve. The committee then sold these reserve raisins for different purposes. They might sell them to other countries or give them to schools. Any money left after paying for committee operations was supposed to go back to the raisin owners. However, this amount was often zero.
Marvin Horne's Dispute
Marvin Horne was a raisin farmer in California. He didn't want to give his raisins to the Raisin Committee. To try and avoid the rule, Horne changed how his farm worked. He became both a grower and a "handler" (someone who sells raisins directly). He thought this meant the reserve rule didn't apply to him.
But the Raisin Committee disagreed. When they tried to collect Horne's raisins, he refused. So, the Committee fined him a lot of money. The fine was for the value of the raisins he didn't give, plus a penalty.
Horne then sued the government in a federal court. He argued that the raisin reserve rule went against the U.S. Constitution. However, the first judge sided with the government. Horne appealed, but a higher court said they didn't even have the power to hear his case. So, Horne asked the Supreme Court to review his case, and they agreed.
Horne I: The Right to Sue
In the first case, Horne v. Department of Agriculture (called Horne I), the Supreme Court made an important decision. All nine Justices agreed. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the main opinion.
The Court decided that the lower court was wrong. Horne *did* have the right to sue the government. They said that even though Horne tried to change his farm's structure, the raisin rule still applied to him. Because the rule applied, he could challenge it in court. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court. They told that court to actually decide if the raisin reserve rule was constitutional or not.
Horne II: Paying for Personal Property
After Horne I, the case went back to the lower court. That court decided that the raisin reserve was *not* a "taking." They said that personal property, like raisins, was protected less than real property (land or buildings). Horne disagreed and asked the Supreme Court to hear his case again. They agreed.
The Court's Main Decision
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion for the Supreme Court in Horne II. The Court decided that the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay fair compensation when it takes personal property. This is the same rule that applies when the government takes real property.
Chief Justice Roberts looked at history, going back 800 years. He found that personal property has always been protected. When the government physically takes someone's property, it's considered a "taking." The raisin reserve rule was a "physical taking" because the government actually took the farmers' raisins.
The Chief Justice also said that any money farmers might get back from the reserve sales didn't change this. If the government physically takes property, they must pay for it. It doesn't matter if the owner might get some money back later.
The Court also disagreed with the idea that selling raisins was a "special government benefit." They said that the government can't force farmers to give up their property just to be able to sell their crops.
Justice Thomas's Concurring Opinion
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the main decision. He wrote a separate opinion to explain his thoughts. He still believed that a previous Supreme Court case about taking land for public use was wrong. He also thought that the government might not have been taking the raisins for a truly "public use."
Justice Breyer's Opinion
Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the raisin reserve was a "physical taking." However, he thought the case should go back to a lower court. He believed the lower court should figure out the exact amount of money Horne should get. Justice Breyer argued that the fine amount might not be the right way to value the raisins. He also thought that if Horne actually benefited from the raisin program, he shouldn't be excused from the fine.
Justice Sotomayor's Dissenting Opinion
Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the majority. She wrote that taking Horne's raisins was not a "taking" under the Constitution. She argued that a "physical taking" only happens when the owner completely loses all their rights to the property. She said that even though the raisin rule might seem "silly," it wasn't a complete loss of ownership. This was because farmers might get some money back from the reserve sales.
Justice Sotomayor also argued that selling raisins was a "government benefit." She believed that if the government provides a benefit, it can set conditions for that benefit.
