High Court Rules Raisin Grab Unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
|
“‘Let them sell wine’ is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history,” he wrote. “Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated.” Chief Justice Roberts |
In the 8-1 decision, the justices said forcing raisin growers to surrender part of their annual crop is an illegal confiscation of private property. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The ruling is a victory for California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed they were losing money because of a 1937 law that allows the USDA to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by managing supply.
A 1949 marketing order led to a Raisin Administrative Committee whose task was to decide how much of the crop must go to the government each year.
The Hornes refused to participate in the program in 2003 and 2004. They tried to get around regulations by packaging crops themselves rather than using a middleman, but the USDA fined them $695,000.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices, but the justices disagreed.
|
"Progressives say, 'Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together." That is not how the Hornes are experiencing government." George Will |
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the government’s argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don’t like it.
The ruling is a win for property-rights advocates seeking to limit government power. Only a few other crops are regulated this way, and the programs are not active. A USDA spokesman said agency officials were reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment. s