Until this week, it had almost become a truism that the Just Compensation Clause only required that the Government pay for whatever property it took, and imposed no other restrictions. That is, the Just Compensation Clause is a sword, not a shield. Not so anymore. With the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, property owners effectively have a taking defense, not just a taking claim, if the Government seeks to take their property.
In Horne, two raisin farmers were accused by the Department of Agriculture of failing to comply with an outmoded, New-Deal scheme of regulations issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act that required them to turn over between 30% and 50% of their yearly raisin crop to the Government, free of charge. After the Hornes were charged almost $700,000 in fines and assessments, they challenged the fines in federal district court based (in part) on the claim that the regulations violated the Fifth Amendment by taking private property, without just compensation.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Fifth Amendment, Fines, Horne v USDA, Just Compensation, Private Property Rights, SCOTUS, Takings, USDA
Published In: Constitutional Law Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC | Attorney Advertising