We are distracted today so haven’t had the time to write up our initial thoughts about Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015), the California raisins takings case which the Supreme Court decided yesterday.
So instead we did this video, a take off on those goofy tech “unboxing” videos.
We’ll have more in the traditional format once we have a chance to write something down. Continue Reading Unboxing Video: Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture
… look no further than the above report from The Daily Show.
Yeah, it’s satire and does at times make light of a serious case, but the USDA was trying to defend a regulation that branded the Hornes as “raisin outlaws,” going so far as to hire a private security firm to “investigate the product” that the Hornes were defrauding the government of (dried fruit).
Top off “the world’s most outdated law” with the Ninth Circuit’s ridiculous avoidance after the Supreme Court’s earlier remand (the Takings Clause does not apply with equal force to personal property as it does to land) , and you have the recipe for success and an 8-1 ruling.
Continue Reading Here’s Why The Supreme Court Held The Raisin Marketing Order Was Unconstitutional…
Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):
Here’s the podcast of our recent talk to the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law about the (then) upcoming decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275. Transcript here, if you’d prefer to read it.
This is a preview of the decision. But since we made some predictions — several of which bore fruit in today’s opinions — we thought we’d post it while we digest the Court’s opinions.
As you may know, the Court today issued its opinions, with eight justices concluding that the raisin marketing order is a physical taking of property, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the physical takings rules do not apply when personal property is involved.
We’ll have more analysis shortly, including a round-up of how other commentators view the case. Stay tuned.
Continue Reading Podcast: Leviathan Shrugged? The Supreme Court’s Raisin Takings Case
As we predicted, the Supreme Court today held that personal property — here, raisins — is property protected from uncompensated acquisition, and that the USDA’s New Deal regulations pursuant to which the Department fined the Hornes for not turning over to the government a massive percentage of their yearly crop without compensation, is a physical taking under Loretto. Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015).
Eight justices rejected the Ninth Circuit’s weird ruling that the regulations did not work a taking because raisins are personal property and not land, holding that “[t]he reserve requirement is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government.” Slip op. at 8. The Court cited [the] Magna Carta, noting it protected certain crops from appropriation:
The Takings Clause provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S.
Continue Reading Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy
“It’s Frank’s world, we just live in it.”
– attributed to Dean Martin, about Frank Sinatra
A narrowly drawn opinion from the Supreme Court in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, argued in April and to be decided by the Court sometime before the Term ends this month, could attract more than the needed five Justices to form a bare majority, and the initial reports from the arguments agree that the Hornes’ takings argument appeared to gain traction with at least a couple of Justices from the Court’s left bloc. Combined with the property-friendly Justices and Justice Kennedy (who appeared to view the government’s arguments with great skepticism), they could put the Hornes well over the top.
There may be much more at stake, however, if any part of the government’s
Last week, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sierra Club v. Castle and Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., No. SCAP-13-0000765, a case involving a challenge by the usual suspects to a State Land Use Commission “boundary amendment” (aka state “rezoning” to those of you not familiar with Hawaii’s top-heavy state land use planning scheme).
According to the Judiciary web site summary of the case, here are the issues:
In this case, Appellants Sierra Club and Senator Clayton Hee appeal from the Decision and Order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which denied and dismissed their appeal from the Land Use Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, which approved Appellee Castle & Cooke’s Petition for District Boundary Amendment. The Land Use Commission reclassified approximately 769 acres of Castle & Cooke’s land from the state agricultural land use district to the state
For those of you who are members of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee (if you aren’t, you can become a member easily; just ask me how), please tune in on June 12, 2015 for our monthly teleconference.
Here’s the announcement:
Our third meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm EDT, and we will be featuring as our speaker, Robert Thomas, a land use lawyer and publisher of the law blog inversecondemnation.com (who is also the Chair of the Section’s Eminent Domain Committee) who will present a 20 minute program about the key takings case now awaiting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture.
FREE Teleconference Sponsored by the Land Use Committee
Friday, June 12, 2015
2:00 p.m. EDT
Dial-in 888-3967955
Passcode 797687#
Everything a Land Use Lawyer Needs To Know About
While we put the finishing touches on our full write-up of last week’s oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275 (we posted our initial thoughts after attending the Court’s session here), here are other summaries of the arguments:
We were in the neighborhood, so decided to drop in on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the case about the taking of California raisins.
The arguments ended a few minutes ago, and here’s our initial thoughts:
Continue Reading SCOTUS Oral Arguments In Horne (Taking California Raisins) – First Report
