As we predicted, the Supreme Court today held that personal property -- here, raisins -- is property protected from uncompensated acquisition, and that the USDA's New Deal regulations pursuant to which the Department fined the Hornes for not turning over to the government a massive percentage of their yearly crop without compensation, is a physical taking under Loretto. Horne v. Dep't of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015).
Eight justices rejected the Ninth Circuit's weird ruling that the regulations did not work a taking because raisins are personal property and not land, holding that "[t]he reserve requirement is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government." Slip op. at 8. The Court cited [the] Magna Carta, noting it protected certain crops from appropriation:
The Takings Clause provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. It protects “private property” without any distinction between different types. The principle reflected in the Clause goes back at least 800 years to Magna Carta, which specifically protected agricultural crops from uncompensated takings. Clause 28 of that charter forbade any “constable or other bailiff” from taking “corn or other provisions from any one without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller.” Cl. 28 (1215), in W. McKechnie, Magna Carta, A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 329 (2d ed. 1914).Slip op. at 5.
Five justices also agreed on the remedy: the Department had fined the Hornes the market value of the raisins, so the just compensation had already been calculated.
Reversed, case over. Slip op. at 18 ("This case, in litigation for more than a decade, has gone on long enough.").
Three justices (Bryer, Ginsburg, Kagan) separately concurred and dissented on the appropriate remedy: they would have remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit on the question of just compensation. Read our oral argument summary for why we thought that wasn't necessary.
Also, as we predicted, the score on the liability was 8-1, with Justice Sotomayor being the sole dissenter, further cementing her outlier position on takings law.
More, after we've had a chance to review the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions.
