Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

We expect orders from the February 24 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday, March 1.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-123 9th Cir. Mar 20, 2013
Tr.Aud.
Jun 10, 2013 9-0 Thomas OT 2012
 
Share:

Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.

Plain English Summary:

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.   JudgmentReversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.
Term Snapshot
Awards