Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires the Government to pay just compensation when it physically takes personal property, including raisins subject to a federal reserve requirement. The Court rejected the argument that growers’ contingent interest in net proceeds or the ability to sell raisins in interstate commerce avoided a taking. It reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the Hornes could assert a takings defense to the Government’s fine.

Holdings

1. The Fifth Amendment requires the Government to pay just compensation when it physically takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.
2. A contingent interest in possible net proceeds does not mean that the reserve raisins were not physically appropriated and does not eliminate the Government's duty to pay just compensation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking applies to personal property as well as real property.
2. Whether the Government's retention of a contingent interest in possible net proceeds from reserve raisins eliminates or offsets the physical taking.
3. Whether the Government may require raisin growers to surrender specific, identifiable personal property without compensation as a condition of selling raisins in interstate commerce.
4. Whether the Hornes were required to pay the fine and seek compensation under the Tucker Act before raising a takings defense.
5. Whether the case should be remanded for calculation of compensation based on asserted benefits from the marketing order.