We get to post the California Raisins again!
Last term, in Horne v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (June 10, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a property owner could raise a takings claim as a defense to the government's attempt to impose a fine pursuant to a complex federal regulatory scheme affecting raisin farmers, which requires those in the industry to set aside a percentage of their yearly crop and "donate" it to the public. The Court held that District Courts have jurisdiction to hear a property owner's claim that this works a taking, and held that the Court of Federal Claims does not have exclusive jurisdiction over this type of claim.
Having resolved the jurisdictional issue in favor of the property owners, the Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for a determination of the merits of their takings defense. Predictably (given the panel composition of Judges Reinhardt, Hawkins, and Gould), the Ninth Circuit held the regulations did not work a taking.
The property owners have now filed another cert petition, posing three Questions Presented:
1. Whether the government’s “categorical duty”
under the Fifth Amendment to pay justcompensation when it “physically takes possession of interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511, 518 (2012), applies only to real property and not to personal property.2. Whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government’s discretion.3. Whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a “condition” on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking.
There will be more, so stay tuned.