Farmers Fight to Keep Their Raisins

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.,  “Could the government say to a manufacturer of cellphones, ‘You can sell cellphones; however, every fifth one you have to give to us.’ Or a manufacturer of cars, ‘You can sell cars in the United States, but every third car you have to give to the United States.”

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case brought by farmers from California challenging a decades-old law that requires they surrender to the government a portion of their raisin crop. Marvin and Laura Horne, whose family has grown raisins in the Fresno area for 50 years, argue that the requirement to turn over their raisins is unconstitutional.

Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, or the fast-track bill The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (enacted to protect farmers from radical fluctuations in the market) gave the USDA authority to regulate the sale of certain agricultural products, including the use of marketing orders. A marketing order specific to California raisins directed the USDA’s Raisin Administrative Committee to establish a yearly raisin tonnage reserve requirement. Every year, the USDA tells raisin farmers what percentage of their crop they must turn over as their reserve requirement.

In 2002, the committee set the reserve tonnage rate at 47%, which brought in 22.1 million pounds of raisins. The next year, the rate was 30%. The committee does with the raisins what it chooses, including giving the reserve to charity, selling it overseas, or selling it back to farmers so they can export it.

Four years ago, the Hornes refused to turn over their reserve requirement, and the USDA fined them nearly $700,000. That touched off the legal battle that went before the Justices last week.

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler defended the raisin regulation before the Justices. Among his arguments was that the “government can attach reasonable conditions on (things) entering a stream of commerce.”  S