Supreme Court overturns crop reserve program
Supreme Court overturns crop reserve program
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 22 that a federal program requiring growers to set aside a certain percentage of their crop to support pricing violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition of taking private property for public use without just compensation.
The case revolves around raisin growers Marvin and Laura Horne, who in 2001 established a coalition of 61 raisin growers in Fresno and Madera counties in California, known as the Raisin Valley Marketing Association. The Hornes contended that they are producers rather than handlers, and thus not subject to the set-aside program. After refusing to participate, they were assessed $480,000 for the raisins’ value and fined $200,000.
The case was heard in several venues over the years, with different rulings reached by lower courts.
In June 2013, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which ruled that the “Takings Clause” does not apply to raisins.
The June 22 ruling is a significant departure from past practice by the high court, which has long upheld limits on farm production and marketing rules, dating back to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, which closely regulated agriculture to help a languishing economy during the Great Depression.
In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “A physical taking of raisins and a regulatory limit on production may have the same economic impact on a grower. The Constitution, however, is concerned with the means as well as the ends,” and the program ran afoul of the “Takings Clause.”
Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagen in saying that the program was a taking but may have benefited the Hornes in lifting prices. Breyer said the case should be sent to a lower court.
In dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that since the Hornes retained some of the property rights even after the raisins were surrendered, thus the program was not a taking.
