Raisin Grower Wins Supreme Court Battle
The United States Supreme Court has handed down some major decisions recently; the two biggest were granting the right for same-sex couples to marry anywhere in the country, and the ruling in favor of Obamacare. Besides these historic decisions, there was another that’s being hailed as important for property rights and the raisin industry.
It all began with a raisin grower bucking a federal system that’s been in place since the 1930s. The United States Department of Agriculture’s California Raisin Marketing Order, a Depression-era program that began in 1937, was put in place to stabilize raisin prices. A board of private raisin producers would meet every year to determine by a two-thirds margin if a percentage of each grower’s crop should be set aside in order to maintain stable crop prices. The Department of Agriculture would then adopt the decision into law. The surplus raisins, for which the government did not pay, would then be used for various federal programs, exports or for charity, according to NPR.
The raisin producers would receive a portion of the net proceeds from the surplus, often amounting to less than the cost of growing the grapes, or nothing at all.
In the 2002-2003 season, the government ordered raisin growers to set aside 47 percent of their crop. Marvin and Laura Horne, raisin growers and packers in Kerman, California, near Fresno, refused to play ball. When the government sent trucks to the Hornes’ facility to pick up the raisins, the Hornes refused them entry. In response, the federal government ordered them to pay $480,000 (the fair market value of the raisins) and a more than $200,000 fine, according to the court decision.
The Hornes fought the federal government on the issue, and the case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court after a challenge to a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
On June 22, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Marvin Horne that the supply management system violates the Takings Clause in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The court also set aside the more than $480,000 the government had assessed against the Hornes. The majority also found that there is no difference between real and personal property, as the Ninth Circuit had contended there was. Real property is land and items permanently attached to it, while personal property is pretty much everything else.
“No more will they take our raisins and not pay for them,” Marvin Horne told Reuters. “It’s been tough for us having this cloud over our heads. Now we have been vindicated.”
Many raisin producers don’t see it that way. More than 1,600 of them from California had joined the USDA to defend the program. They say the Hornes are “free riders” who evaded the rules and also benefitted from the higher prices those rules guaranteed, according to the LA Times.
Whether the Supreme Court decision will dismantle the federal Marketing Order in the raisin industry is still an open question.
“The decision could possibly spell the end of the current system, but in principle, all it means is that the government will have to pay compensation for the fair market value of any of the raisins that are taken this way,” Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, tells Modern Farmer in a phone interview. “I’m not sure if going forward the Department of Agriculture has authorization from Congress to pay compensation in these cases and if they don’t have that authorization, than in order to keep this program functioning, they might need Congress to pass a new law, which of course could happen, but doesn’t seem tremendously likely.”
According to Somin, who was involved in an amicus brief in the case, if the Supreme Court had come down on the side of the Department of Agriculture, it “would have had very dangerous implications for all sorts of taking cases and property rights.” He says the decision has prevented personal property from being “vulnerable to uncompensated taking” and also points to the Court’s move toward “beginning to take Constitutional property rights more seriously.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenting opinion in the case, agreeing with the Ninth Circuit Court that because the raisin producers sometimes receive compensation for the product, the USDA’s seizure didn’t qualify as a true taking.
Somin, who has blogged about the case for The Washington Post, says it’s “a bad argument. It’s a little like saying there isn’t a taking if the government seizes your house, sells it, and gives you 5 percent of their profits from the sale of the house. The fact that they give you some compensation in no way means your property wasn’t seized in the first place.”
In the end, it may be a moot point as far as the raisin industry is concerned. The federal government hasn’t ordered any raisins set aside in the past five years.
Follow us
Republish!
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Want to republish a Modern Farmer story?
We are happy for Modern Farmer stories to be shared, and encourage you to republish our articles for your audience. When doing so, we ask that you follow these guidelines:
Please credit us and our writers
For the author byline, please use “Author Name, Modern Farmer.” At the top of our stories, if on the web, please include this text and link: “This story was originally published by Modern Farmer.”
Please make sure to include a link back to either our home page or the article URL.
At the bottom of the story, please include the following text:
“Modern Farmer is a nonprofit initiative dedicated to raising awareness and catalyzing action at the intersection of food, agriculture, and society. Read more at <link>Modern Farmer</link>.”
Use our widget
We’d like to be able to track our stories, so we ask that if you republish our content, you do so using our widget (located on the left hand side of the article). The HTML code has a built-in tracker that tells us the data and domain where the story was published, as well as view counts.
Check the image requirements
It’s your responsibility to confirm you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some images, such as those from commercial providers, don't allow their images to be republished without permission or payment. Copyright terms are generally listed in the image caption and attribution. You are welcome to omit our images or substitute with your own. Charts and interactive graphics follow the same rules.
Don’t change too much. Or, ask us first.
Articles must be republished in their entirety. It’s okay to change references to time (“today” to “yesterday”) or location (“Iowa City, IA” to “here”). But please keep everything else the same.
If you feel strongly that a more material edit needs to be made, get in touch with us at [email protected]. We’re happy to discuss it with the original author, but we must have prior approval for changes before publication.
Special cases
Extracts. You may run the first few lines or paragraphs of the article and then say: “Read the full article at Modern Farmer” with a link back to the original article.
Quotes. You may quote authors provided you include a link back to the article URL.
Translations. These require writer approval. To inquire about translation of a Modern Farmer article, contact us at [email protected]
Signed consent / copyright release forms. These are not required, provided you are following these guidelines.
Print. Articles can be republished in print under these same rules, with the exception that you do not need to include the links.
Tag us
When sharing the story on social media, please tag us using the following: - Twitter (@ModFarm) - Facebook (@ModernFarmerMedia) - Instagram (@modfarm)
Use our content respectfully
Modern Farmer is a nonprofit and as such we share our content for free and in good faith in order to reach new audiences. Respectfully,
No selling ads against our stories. It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads.
Don’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.
You have no rights to sell, license, syndicate, or otherwise represent yourself as the authorized owner of our material to any third parties. This means that you cannot actively publish or submit our work for syndication to third party platforms or apps like Apple News or Google News. We understand that publishers cannot fully control when certain third parties automatically summarize or crawl content from publishers’ own sites.
Keep in touch
We want to hear from you if you love Modern Farmer content, have a collaboration idea, or anything else to share. As a nonprofit outlet, we work in service of our community and are always open to comments, feedback, and ideas. Contact us at [email protected].by Andrew Amelinckx, Modern Farmer
June 29, 2015
Modern Farmer Weekly
Solutions Hub
Innovations, ideas and inspiration. Actionable solutions for a resilient food system.
ExploreExplore other topics
Share With Us
We want to hear from Modern Farmer readers who have thoughtful commentary, actionable solutions, or helpful ideas to share.
SubmitNecessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and are used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies.
In her (assuming gender here) that Sotomayor is nut job that believes everything belongs to the government. Don’t worry. I’m from the government and am here to help you. What a goofball. What a maroon!!!