Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to pay just compensation when it physically takes personal property, including raisins subject to the federal raisin reserve requirement. The Court rejected the arguments that growers' contingent interest in net proceeds or their ability to avoid the requirement by planting different crops eliminated the taking. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and permitted the growers to raise a takings defense to the fines imposed for failing to surrender the raisins.

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 or residual interest in proceeds from Government-controlled property does not eliminate a physical taking; any payment received may bear on the amount of just compensation, not on whether the property was taken.
3. The Government may not require raisin growers to surrender property without compensation as a condition of selling raisins in interstate commerce.
4. The Hornes could raise a takings-based defense to the fine and were not required to pay the fine first and then seek compensation under the Tucker Act.
5. No remand was necessary because the Government had already calculated the market value of the raisins as $483,843.53, and the Hornes should be relieved of the fine and associated civil penalty.

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 net proceeds from reserve raisins defeats a finding that the raisins were physically taken.
3. Whether the Government may condition permission to sell raisins in interstate commerce on the growers' surrender of specific, identifiable property without just compensation.
4. Whether the Hornes were required to pay the fine and seek compensation under the Tucker Act before asserting a takings defense.
5. Whether the case required remand for calculation of just compensation.

Disposition

reversed