Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Editor's Note :

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

Justices release financial disclosures – Amy Howe

Challengers ask justices to put off census decision – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 10, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 13, 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

Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

Justices release financial disclosures – Amy Howe

Challengers ask justices to put off census decision – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 will release orders from the June 13 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's "Relist Watch" compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Monday at 10 a.m.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their June 20 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, 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 -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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
- Quarles v. United States Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
- Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
- Azar v. Allina Health Services Because the Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically – and retroactively – reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients, its policy must be vacated.
- Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis The charge-filing precondition to suit set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional requirement.
- Mont v. United States Pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction tolls a supervised-release term under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.
- Taggart v. Lorenzen A creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Jordan v. City of Darien, Georgia Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law.
- Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (1) Whether Oregon violated the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment by compelling the Kleins to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding ritual in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs; (2) whether the Supreme Court should overrule Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith; and (3) whether the Supreme Court should reaffirm Smith’s hybrid-rights doctrine, applying strict scrutiny to free exercise claims that implicate other fundamental rights, and resolve the circuit split over the doctrine’s precedential status.
- McGee v. McFadden (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it found no constitutional error when the state failed to disclose Brady evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch, until the post-trial hearing for a motion for a new trial; (2) whether the state and federal courts’ decisions were contrary to Giglio v. United States, United States v. Bagley, Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when the state failed to disclose material impeachment evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch who testified that petitioner confessed to him; and (3) whether the state and federal courts erred in finding that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel when he failed to interview Michael Jones and call him as a witness.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 42

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 10, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

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	69
Cases decided	42
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	73

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference