Horne v. Department of Agriculture: Just Compensation Left to Wither on the Vine

Michael P. Collins Jr.

Like many agricultural products sold in the United States, the price of raisins fluctuated erratically during the early twentieth century. In response, Congress empowered the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to stabilize raisin prices. Since 1949, the USDA has attempted to stabilize raisin prices through marketing orders which prohibit a certain percentage of the annual raisin crop from being sold on the open market. In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court considered whether one such price control, which required raisin producers to surrender a portion of their crops to the federal government, amounted to a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the program did in fact amount to a taking, and required the government to pay “just compensation” for the raisins. The Court chose not to remand for further determination of whether the Hornes should be compensated, but instead held that the claimants should be refunded for the fines issued by the federal government following non-compliance with the USDA program.

When considering just compensation, the Court failed to examine whether the Hornes were compensated, at least partially, through the USDA raisin program. Rather than quickly dismissing the government’s claim that the raisin program may not require compensation, the Court should have remanded for a further determination of just compensation. Remanding would have accounted for the fair market value of the raisins without the price support program and the benefits received by the Hornes as a result of the regulatory activities provided by the government. The Court’s failure to do so will have far-reaching consequences. Namely, the Horne decision will enable future takings claimants to receive more than “just compensation.”