I love this story. https://t.co/Y99B5vdcZA
— Wejolyn 🇺🇸 (@Wejolyn) October 15, 2024
.webp)
Marvin and Laura Horne used to follow these rules and abide by the committee's decision. But something happened years ago that made them decide to go outside the system: In 2002, the Raisin Administrative Committee voted for a particularly big diversion. Instead of letting the farmers sell all their raisins, they decided to divert a ton of them into the raisin "reserve" — 47 percent."A lot of we all jumped up and yelled, and said, 'No, it's crazy. What's the matter with you guys?' " says Marvin Horne. "It was no avail, and that's when I came home, and I talked with my wife, and we said, 'No, we're not going to deliver.' "The Hornes knew if they didn't deliver to the raisin reserve, they might be breaking the law. So they started researching. They got a hold of the actual legislation where this is laid out, Marketing Order Part 989, and the Hornes say they found a loophole in the law. Loophole in hand, they set up their own packing operation a couple of years ago and started selling all their raisins.The Raisin Administrative Committee does not agree with the Hornes' legal interpretation. They say the Hornes are breaking the law and should be punished.What happened next is proof of how upside-down the world of raisins is. For not agreeing to participate in behavior that in many other industries would be considered collusion, the federal government sued the Hornes for hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncollected raisins and fines. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court before being kicked down to a lower appeals court.The Hornes are awaiting a decision.The decision about how many raisins should be sold to the public isn't supposed to be made by individual farmers working on individual farms across California. It's supposed to be made by a group — the Raisin Administrative Committee. The committee gets together regularly to decide how to market the raisins of California, and they set grades and standards for California raisins. Another, more unusual, part of their work is determining how many raisins to sell to the public.
Reporting from Washington —The Supreme Court has ruled for a California raisin grower and declared it was unconstitutional for a government-backed agricultural board to claim control of about one-third of his crop.
The justices said Marvin Horne from Fresno deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of his personal property.
The 5th Amendment forbids the government from taking private property without paying “just compensation,” and the high court said this protection applies to raisins as well as real estate.
The ruling deals a blow to the last of the New Deal-era farm programs that authorize growers to join together to prop up the market prices for their products. The raisin board had the support of most growers, and its “marketing orders” had the backing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
During the Great Depression raisin prices dropped over 80%. Congress reacted by passing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 ("AMAA"). The AMAA allowed United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to issue marketing orders and agreements holding a portion of harvests in reserve so as to inflate prices. Authority to determine the annual portion of "reserve tonnage" raisins that were held by the government and the "free tonnage" raisins that owners may sell on the open market was delegated by USDA to the Raisin Administrative Committee, a body composed of raisin industry representatives appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture
Back to the LA Times article.
Horne, however, preferred to sell raisins on his own, and he accused the board of “stealing his crop.”
The USDA defended the board and said these collective actions helped to stabilize the market and prevent sharp swings in prices. The “reserve” portion of the crop is sometimes sold overseas or is given to schools as part of the school lunch program.
Government lawyers said growers like Horne benefited in the end because they obtained higher prices for raisins sold on the open market.
Chief Justice Roberts said the “reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the government.”
The 5th Amendment requires the government to pay “just compensation” if it seizes someone’s land for public use, and the same principle applies to raisins, he said.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed.
The ruling means the Hornes do not have to pay the large fines imposed by the USDA.
“The Hornes should simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty they were assessed when they resisted the government’s effort to take their raisins,” Roberts said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said the government had not taken all of Horne’s property but simply regulated the sale of raisins.
Three others, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, said a lower court should first consider how the Hornes benefited from higher raisin prices before calculating how much compensation they deserve.
California produces 99% of the nation’s raisins and about 40% of the world crop.
Horne's legal battle against a federal agency lasted 11 years.
Horne’s victory was long in coming. In 2004, he was accused of violating the USDA’s marketing order for failing to turn over the required “reserve” portion of his crop in 2003 and 2004. He was hit with fines of $685,000.
He then went to federal court in California, arguing the seizure of his raisins was unconstitutional. He lost before a district judge and twice before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the marketing orders were a type of business regulation.
