JESSALYNN RUBIO–The federal government mandates that California raisin farmers surrender large portions of their harvest each year. Despite this requirement, California raisin farmers often receive no reimbursement or compensation. The federal government collects these shares and stores them in a national reserve. The raisins are then sold internationally, donated to charities, or destroyed. To what end, one may ask? This practice is the fruit of an antiquated government program that has survived long past its expiration date.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorized the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to regulate the prices of certain crops. To accomplish this, the USDA issued certain marketing orders. The Raisin Marketing Order required raisin farmers to turn over large amounts of their raisins each year. A branch of the USDA, known as the Raisin Administrative Committee, then decided how much of the raisin crop farmers had to turn over. The purpose of the Raisin Marketing Order was to limit the amount of raisins available for consumers in the United States, in order to drive up the price of raisins.
In 2002, Marvin and Laura Horne, California raisin farmers for more than 50 years, decided it was time for a change. The couple refused to follow the Raisin Marketing Order any longer, and they made the affirmative decision to stop contributing to the national raisin reserve. Instead, they began selling 100% of the raisins they harvested. The Hornes were the first dissidents, but many other raisin farmers followed their lead.
The Hornes’ violation of the Raisin Marketing Order caused big problems for them and led to even bigger fines. Marvin Horne argues that this government program is unconstitutional and asserts that the program is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s bar against uncompensated takings.
The USDA fined the Hornes almost $700,000 for refusing to hand over their raisins. The Hornes fought back and challenged the fines though the USDA and in federal district court. A loss at the district court level was followed by another setback at the Ninth Circuit, where the Appeals Court denied jurisdiction to rule on the case.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for the first time, but sent the case back down to the lower court to decide on the takings issue. The Ninth Circuit subsequently rendered a judgment against the Hornes. The appellate court found that the prohibition against takings applied only to real property and that the government program therefore did not constitute a taking. Again, the Hornes appealed to the Supreme Court.
On January 17, 2015, the Supreme Court granted review of the Horne’s case for a second time. This time, the Court will determine whether the Fifth Amendment extends its protection to seizure of both personal property and real property, alike.
If the Hornes prevail in their takings claim against the USDA, the repercussions may be substantial. The Court’s ruling could be the impetus needed to reevaluate all current USDA marketing orders. At this time, the USDA regulates volume control for 20 agricultural products. The impact of the Court’s decision rests on the scope of its takings interpretation. Nonetheless, if the Court finds that the Raisin Marketing Order is unconstitutional, the USDA may face a massive overhaul. Crops will not be the only thing U.S. farmers will be raising.
