Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-275	9th Cir.	Apr 22, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jun 22, 2015	5-4	Roberts	OT 2014

Holding: The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. In this case, any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking; it does not mean the raisins have not been appropriated for government use. Nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 22, 2015. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan join Chief Justice Roberts opinion as to Part I and II. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Is the New Deal in new trouble? (Lyle Denniston)
A “view” from the Courtroom: A web of intrigue as the Term winds down (Mark Walsh)
View from the Courtroom: Justices sometimes face off with each other in raisin case (Mark Walsh)
Argument analysis: Imagery overwhelms the facts (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Regulation or confiscation? (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 10 2014	Application (14A44) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 7, 2014 to September 8, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jul 16 2014	Application (14A44) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until September 8, 2014.
Sep 8 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 8, 2014)
Sep 15 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for respondent.
Sep 15 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for petitioners.
Sep 30 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 7, 2014.
Oct 7 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Texas filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amici curiae of DKT Liberty Project, and Eighteen Independent Raisin Growers filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional and Property Law Scholars filed.
Oct 8 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Nov 4 2014	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 8, 2014.
Dec 8 2014	Brief of respondent United States Department of Agriculture in opposition filed.
Dec 22 2014	Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed.
Dec 23 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.
Jan 12 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015.
Jan 16 2015	Petition GRANTED.
Feb 24 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Feb 27 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Mar 2 2015	Joint appendix filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed.
Mar 4 2015	Brief amici curiae of Baylen J. Linnekin and Keep Food Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 6 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Mar 9 2015	Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurispurdence filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amici curiae of DKT Liberty Project, and Thirty-Three Independent Raisin Growers filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Federal Circuit Bar Association filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional and Property Law Scholars filed.
Mar 9 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
Mar 16 2015	CIRCULATED.
Mar 17 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Mar 17 2015	Record from U.D.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Mar 25 2015	Record from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of California is electronic. (Adminstrative record)
Apr 1 2015	Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture filed. (Distributed)
Apr 8 2015	Brief amici curiae of Sun-Maid Growers of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 8 2015	Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)
Apr 15 2015	Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Apr 22 2015	Argued. For petitioners: Michael W. McConnell, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Apr 29 2015	Letter from the Solicitor General received and distributed.
Jun 22 2015	Judgment REVERSED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jul 24 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance – Rory Little

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance – Rory Little

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award