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.