Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to New Deal Agricultural Regulation

It’s shaping up to be a very interesting term for the Takings Clause at the U.S. Supreme Court. As I noted last week, the justices have already heard oral argument in one case dealing with whether government-induced flooding counts as a compensable taking of property under the 5th Amendment (read my reporting on that case here) while oral argument has been scheduled for January in another case centering on property rights abuses by Florida officials. Now we have a third case to add to the list. As David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reports,

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear an appeal from Fresno raisin growers Marvin and Laura Horne, who contend that the federal marketing program that can take nearly half of their crop is unconstitutional.

Their case poses a significant challenge to the New Deal-era farm program that seeks to prop up prices by keeping part of the crop off the market.

It also raises questions about the limits of the government's power to regulate commerce, an issue that sharply divided the justices in the major healthcare overhaul case decided in June.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well now, isn't this delicious. Roberts, in his disastrous ruling, did essentially reject the notion that the Federales can do whatever they want in the area broadly defined as commerce.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll Bloooooow your house of cards down!"

  • ||

    federal marketing program that can take nearly half of their crop

    How is taking peoples crops not a taking?

  • Jordan||

    Overturning Wickard would produce more progressive tears than a Mitt Romney victory would have. Make it happen.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The problem with overturning Wickard, is that it props up other shitty rulings like Raich, so one can expect that Scalia will never let it happen in a million years. The Drug War trumps ideology and principles for law and order cocksuckers like Scalia.

  • Brutus||

    Sadly, yes.

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you kidding, the wailing over that would completely silence all the concern over Citizens United. We would be drowned in salty ham tears I tell ya.

  • Nick Griffin||

    The commerce clause justifies myriad laws and regulations of businesses and individuals who never leave their state because their activity "affects" interstate ccommerce, i.e., growing marijuana for personal use increases supply and affects interstate price. Its a dirty twist on the founders purpose.

  • Mensan||

    The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear an appeal from Fresno raisin [grape] growers Marvin and Laura Horne, who contend that the federal marketing program that can take nearly half of their crop is unconstitutional.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement