Unanimous Supreme Court Allows Raisin Farmers to Challenge New Deal-Era Farm Control Law

In a unanimous decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that several California raisin farmers may proceed with their constitutional challenge to a New Deal-era farm control law designed to artificially inflate agricultural prices by restricting the supply of goods available for sale on the market.

Under the terms of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, certain farmers are required to hand over a percentage of their crop to the government without compensation for the purpose of raising prices by controlling supply. That seized portion, known as the “reserve tonnage,” may later be used by the government for sale overseas, or sold or given away in a “noncompetitive” domestic market, such as to a school lunch program.

The petitioners in this case, California raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, challenged the government’s seizure of their property on several grounds, including the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which mandates the payment of just compensation when private property is taken for a public use.

The Hornes lost at the federal district court level, however, where the court likened the government’s seizure to “an admissions fee or toll—admittedly a steep one” that the Hornes must pay before enjoying the right to sell their products on the market. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also ruled against the Hornes, but that court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to rule on their Takings Clause claim.

In his opinion today for a unanimous Supreme Court in Horne v. USDA, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 9th Circuit does indeed have jurisdiction and that the Hornes must be permitted to raise their constitutional objection to the government’s actions. Thomas also rejected the government’s argument that the Hornes must first pay a hefty fine before they may turn to the Takings Clause for redress. “When a party raises a constitutional defense to an assessed fine,” Thomas wrote, “it would make little sense to require the party to pay the fine in one proceeding and then turn around and sue for recovery of that same money in another proceeding.” Horne is an important win for all farmers grappling with the web of agricultural regulations and price controls that have been in place since the New Deal.

One issue the Supreme Court did not address was whether the Hornes had raised a valid Takings Clause objection to the government’s uncompensated seizure of their raisins. That issue now returns to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings, and may still reach the Supreme Court on future appeal.

Notably, this is the second unanimous defeat this term for the federal government in a Takings Clause case.

In December, the Court rejected the Obama administration’s argument that a series of recurring floods induced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not qualify as a taking because the flooding was only temporary. In other words, according to the federal government, because the destructive flood waters eventually receded, no property was technically “taken.” Yet as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed in her unanimous opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, “No decision of this Court authorizes a blanket temporary-flooding exception to our Takings Clause jurisprudence, and we decline to create such an exception in this case.”

But don’t get too comfortable with all these unanimous decisions in property rights cases. Still to be decided this term is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, a case arising from a Florida regulatory agency’s refusal to permit the commercial development of a small piece of property unless the owner first agreed to several burdensome conditions, including the funding of off-site improvements to publicly-owned land. During January's oral argument in that case, the Court’s liberal justices expressed strong hostility to the idea that these conditions violated the property owner's rights. And perhaps even more significantly, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed his own doubts about whether petitioner Coy Koontz Jr. and his attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation had raised a valid Takings Clause argument in the first place.

We’ll know by month’s end whether the government’s current Takings Clause losing streak will come to an end in Koontz.

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||

    IT'S ALL BEGINNING TO COLLAPSE!

  • some guy||

    If only. Good luck to these poor bastards at the actual appeal.

    It would be great, though, if agricultural regulations started falling. Food prices would fall with them and it would be an obvious piece of evidence to the common man that Top. Men. don't have the common man's best interest in mind.

  • ||

    Most people don't understand that the government simultaneously drives up the price by buying up surplus and paying people NOT to farm, while also instituting a price ceiling so that foodstuffs can remain "affordable".

  • ||

    I wonder how long it will take before people rightly start shitting all over FDR for what he did to his country. Is it even possible with our magnificent system of public education?

  • some guy||

    I know my kids will be shitting all over FDR for what he did to this country. That's probably the best I can do. I'm sure parent-teacher conferences will be a lot of fun. "Mr. Guy, your child is doing very well on graded assignments, but his questions during history class are confusing and even disturbing to the other children and myself. It's almost as if he believes the answers he's giving are not true!"

  • ||

    I was the sort of kid who would have told the teacher to shut the fuck up and stop making pinko bullshit out to be fact. I hope my kids turn out the same way.

  • ||

    I imagine my parent-teacher conferences (assuming I don't do homeschooling, but even then who knows? haha) to be quite the wild ride. As long as my kids know to back up any answers on tests with sound logic, their teachers don't stand a chance, even if my kids answers won't match the textbook.

  • Brett L||

    The gf has already told me, early in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, that I will not be allowed to attend parent-teacher conferences. I believe that this was to keep our child from being punished for having an asshole for a father, although she might be trying to save me from assault charges.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    ANARCHY!SOMALIA! MUH ROADZ!!!

  • SIV||

    Does this mean prisoners will no longer have the raw material for raisin-jack? Fermented Government raisins have been getting them drunk since the Great Depression.

  • ||

    Only if these guys have anything to say about it:

    http://www.prohibitionparty.org//index.html

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The Hornes lost at the federal district court level, however, where the court likened the government’s seizure to “an admissions fee or toll—admittedly a steep one” that the Hornes must pay before enjoying the right to sell their products on the market"

    Another example of the Willie Sutton brand of government logic.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    Of course a reporter actually made that line up and not Sutton.

  • Juice||

    Do raisins dry on the vine? I ask because aren't they grape farmers?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So they just assume that if the feds didn't give crops to the schools, the school wouldn't buy any other crops to make up for it?

    It seems to me, that in the aggregate, this would affect the market. Which would seem to remove the (shitty) justification for removing the goods from the market in the first place.

  • Cyto||

    No, because... you see, the government gives the free food to the people who need it in school lunches. And they get it from the rich farmers who don't need it and it helps keep the price high so poor people can't afford it, so they gotta take it so they can give it to the poor people who need it cause they took it and made it expensive. Duh.

  • WomSom||

    The Supreme Kangaroo Court really cracks me up man!

    www.AnonStuff.tk

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So they uphold the petitioners' standing to make the claim, but defer decision on the actual merits of the claim.

    So...

    What happens to a lawsuit deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There was no raisin for me to make that lame pun.

  • juris imprudent||

    For a website called raisin...

  • Bryan C||

    When the Great Raisin Famine of 2015 struck, history shows that the Libertarians were the first ones up against the wall.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement