## Facts

- Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could issue marketing orders regulating agricultural commodities, including raisins grown in California.
- A federal raisin marketing order, administered through a Raisin Administrative Committee, required raisin handlers to set aside a percentage of each year’s crop as “reserve” raisins for the Government’s account.
- For the crop years at issue, the reserve percentages were set annually (including 47% for one year and 30% for another).
- Reserve raisins had to be physically transferred to the Committee’s control, and the Government could sell or otherwise dispose of them as part of the supply-control program.
- Any return to growers was uncertain: after sales and program expenses, growers might receive nothing or only some amount tied to any remaining proceeds.
- Marvin Horne and related entities were California raisin growers who also acted as handlers for their own crop.
- In 2002, the Hornes refused to surrender any reserve raisins required by the order.
- USDA pursued enforcement and imposed sanctions, including an assessment based on the fair market value of the raisins the Hornes did not turn over, plus additional civil penalties.
- The Hornes challenged the order as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. After earlier procedural litigation, the Ninth Circuit held the reserve requirement was not a taking, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the merits.

## Issues

1. Does the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause apply to personal property, such as raisins, as well as to real property?
2. Does a requirement that raisin handlers physically transfer a set share of their crop to the Government constitute a per se physical taking requiring just compensation?
3. Does the growers’ retained, uncertain interest in possible future proceeds from Government sales defeat a takings claim?
4. Can the Government condition participation in the raisin market on surrendering property without paying just compensation?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that the Takings Clause applies to personal property and is not limited to land.
- The reserve requirement was a physical appropriation of specific, identifiable raisins and therefore a per se taking.
- The possibility that growers might later receive some proceeds did not prevent a taking; it affected only the amount of compensation, if any offset was appropriate.
- The Court rejected the argument that the ability to sell raisins in interstate commerce is a Government “benefit” that can be conditioned on giving up the right to just compensation.
- Because the Government had already used market value to calculate what it demanded from the Hornes for the raisins they refused to surrender, the Court treated that value as the measure of the property taken and set aside the challenged monetary exactions tied to the uncompensated taking.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment protects “private property” without limiting that protection to real property; personal property is covered.
- When the Government requires an owner to hand over specific property, that compelled transfer is a per se physical taking, triggering the duty to pay just compensation.
- A retained, speculative interest in possible later proceeds does not convert a physical taking into a non-taking; it is relevant only to compensation.
- The Government may regulate commerce, but it may not require the surrender of property without just compensation as a condition for engaging in lawful commerce.

## Conclusion

Horne held that USDA’s raisin reserve requirement compelled a physical transfer of personal property and therefore amounted to a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment, and the Government could not avoid paying just compensation by pointing to uncertain future proceeds or by labeling market participation a benefit conditioned on surrendering raisins.


Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350 (2015)