In a near unanimous (8-1) decision on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of small business farmers in Horne v. United States. This is the so-called “California raisin case,” which we’ve discussed in previous posts. And fans of Comedy Central’s Daily Show might recognize the case from a recent segment—which explained that the government’s position was “un-raisinable.”
But government confiscation of private property is no laughing matter. That’s what was at stake in this case. California raisin farmers were contesting the legality of federal regulations that required them to hand-over a portion of their annual crop.
In some years the government sought to seize as much as 47 percent of their crop—but flatly refused to give any compensation. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture brought an enforcement action and sought to levy severe financial penalties on the Horne family, for refusing to comply with the program. Remarkably the federal courts had upheld this regime—until Monday.
As such, NFIB Small Business Legal Center cheered this week’s decision, as it marked a significant victory for property rights. The Court clarified an important point of law—i.e. that the federal Constitution protects personal property, just the same as real property. Until this week, the federal government had insisted that constitutional protections for property rights only guard against the taking of land—and provided little or no protection for other forms of property. But Chief Justice Roberts emphatically rejected that argument. The decision clarifies that the government must pay you just compensation if it takes any form of property—whether your crops, or inventory from your shelves, your car or any other possession.
To boot, the Chief Justice reminded the government that this was the law long before the federal Constitution was ratified—for 800 years to be exact. Ever since Magna Carta it’s been illegal for government officials to confiscate property without paying for what is taken. But of course, that has not stopped government attempts to skirt the law—which is why we must continue to fight back against government over-reach.
Since we joined with the Cato Institute in urging the Court to rule in favor of the raisin farmers, we would direct you to Ilya Shapiro’s commentary on the Cato Blog for further reading.
Related Content: Small Business Legal News Blog | Property RightsEnter your email to get FREE small business insights. Learn more