Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Justices take up Clean Water Act case, rebuke Texas court in death penalty case – Amy Howe

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 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

Conference of February 15, 2019

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

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.

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

Opinion recap: Much more than raisins? (Lyle Denniston)
Details: Horne v. Department of Agriculture (Tom Goldstein)
Argument recap: If only it were simple... (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: A vintage "takings" case (Lyle Denniston)
Court to rule on raisin program (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 4 2012	Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic.
May 29 2012	Application (11A1125) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 10, 2012 to August 9, 2012, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jun 1 2012	Application (11A1125) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 25, 2012.
Jul 25 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2012)
Aug 21 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 26, 2012.
Aug 27 2012	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Sep 19 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 26, 2012.
Oct 26 2012	Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture in opposition filed.
Nov 5 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Nov 5 2012	Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 20 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Dec 21 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 9, 2013.
Dec 21 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 12, 2013.
Jan 7 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Jan 9 2013	Brief of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed.
Jan 9 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)
Jan 16 2013	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Jan 16 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Jan 16 2013	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed.
Jan 16 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Texas filed.
Jan 18 2013	Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic.
Jan 18 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern Districtof California (Fresno) is electronic.
Jan 23 2013	CIRCULATED.
Feb 4 2013	Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic.
Feb 12 2013	Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013	Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Sun-Maid Growers of California filed. (Distributed)
Mar 13 2013	Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013	Argued. For petitioners: Michael W. McConnell, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 10 2013	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jul 12 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Justices take up Clean Water Act case, rebuke Texas court in death penalty case – Amy Howe

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann
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 orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
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.
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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 Decisions
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- 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.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 44

Cases decided 11

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

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	44
Cases decided	11
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)