Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture
750 F.3d 1128
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- The Marketing Order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act requires California raisin producers to divert a percentage of their crop to a reserve, with penalties for noncompliance.
- Raisins diverted to the reserve are held and later sold; net proceeds after costs are distributed to producers, sometimes with zero distribution.
- Hornes, raisin producers, challenged the order as a taking under the Fifth Amendment after being penalized for failure to reserve, arguing it deprived them of personal property without just compensation.
- Hornes attempted a nontraditional packing operation to avoid status as handlers, contending the order did not apply to them; the government argued they remained subject to the order.
- The Judicial Officer imposed various penalties including a monetary penalty tied to noncompliance, which the Hornes sought to challenge in district court.
- Supreme Court remanded to address merits of the takings claim, holding handlers could seek district court review; the panel then decided the merits on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hornes have standing to challenge the penalty? | Hornes have injury from penalty; relate to reserves. | Standing limited to raisins owned; third-party raisins not owned by Hornes. | Hornes have standing to challenge the penalty. |
| Does the Marketing Order's reserve requirement constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment? | Penalty connected to reserved raisins; takes property without compensation. | Regulation regulates commerce, not a per se taking; prevents economic disruption. | No taking; not a per se taking; Nexus and rough proportionality analyzed under Nollan/Dolan framework. |
| What analytical framework governs the alleged regulatory taking? | Loretto per se rule applies to physical occupation. | Nollan/Dolan use restriction framework more appropriate. | Nollan/Dolan framework applies; not Loretto. |
| Does the reserve program involve a valid nexus between the regulation and the government’s interest? | Nexus not sufficiently tied to orderly marketing goals. | Reserve promotes orderly marketing and price stability. | Nexus satisfied; program furthers orderly marketing goals. |
| Is the reserve requirement roughly proportional to the government’s interest in stabilizing the raisin market? | Exaction bears no proportional relation to impact on market. | Requirement adjusted annually to reflect market conditions; proportional to goal. | Rough proportionality satisfied; not a taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings framework and general takings law guidance)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1987) (nexus and rough proportionality for exactions on land)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (rough proportionality requirement for exactions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2589 (S. Ct. 2013) (monetary exactions linked to development require nexus and proportionality)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (personal property protections and limits on regressive takings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (per se taking for permanent physical occupation of property)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1943) (antitrust and state action context informing regulatory legitimacy)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (multi-factor Penn Central framework for regulatory takings)
- Wallace v. Hudson-Duncan & Co., 98 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1938) (regulatory reserve requirements in marketing orders case history)
- Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1992) (regulation and takings context involving municipal controls)
- Brown v. Legal Found. of Wash., 538 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2003) (personal property protections under takings doctrine)