SCOTUS Rules Against The Raisin Ripoff -- A Small Win Against The Dead Hand Of The New Deal

Forbes ^ | June 26, 2015 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

On June 22, the Supreme Court released its decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture. When I wrote about Horne after oral arguments last fall, I called it the “raisin ripoff” case because the federal government (specifically, the Department of Agriculture’s Raisin Administrative Committee) had demanded 47 percent of the Hornes’ crop for its “price stabilization” system back in 2002.

The value of those raisins was roughly $484,000. When the Hornes refused to obey the Department’s order to turn over the raisins, they were slapped with an assessment plus a fine amounting to $695,000. They fought back, arguing that the government had violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment because it sought to take their property without paying just compensation.

Litigation dragged on for years, with the case making two appearances in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion finally puts to rest the strained, desperate arguments that the government had hoped would keep this absurd policy going.

For one, he dismissed the claim that the Fifth Amendment was only meant to protect against takings of real property and that takings of personal property (like raisins) did not have to be compensated. Roberts noted that one of the reasons why the Constitution’s drafters included the just compensation requirement was that the people had suffered from uncompensated seizures of personal property by the British and did not want any of that in their new country.

[SMARTY]

“O’s” Muslim friends won’t like THAT

[Pearls Before Swine]

Does this undo the awful Depression era ruling on Wikard v. Filburn?

In that case, the government used the Interstate Commerce Clause to stop a farmer from growing wheat on his own farm for his own use on the farm. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the case:

“The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate). Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.”

How is the raisin situation different? Legal beagles: Does this go against Wickard v. Filburn? Reading the article, it looks like that was the argument used by the Ninth Ciruit, which Roberts rejected.

[Bill W was a conservative]

I wonder if that $695,000 fine is looking rather light compared to what the company had to pay to defend itself.

Up until 6 years ago, I worked in a business that I was convinced would some day be "Gibsonated." And that was before the great Gibson Guitar Wood Raid.

[wideminded]

the federal government (specifically, the Department of Agriculture’s Raisin Administrative Committee) had demanded 47 percent of the Hornes’ crop for its “price stabilization” system back in 2002. The value of those raisins was roughly $484,000.

1. What would the value be if there were no system to keep prices from crashing?

2. Isn't it true that many of these price stabilization systems are administered by the Department of Agriculture, but are established by farmers for their own benefit?