Horne v. USDA

USDA’s action of imposing a raisin marketing order diverting a percentage of raisins from raisin handlers does not violate the Takings Clause because the requirement to divert raisins in order to maintain market conditions is “roughly proportional to the specific interest” that the USDA is attempting to protect.

Plaintiff’s, collective referred to as “the Hornes”, brought action following the imposition of penalties by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)for their violation of a Raisin marketing order that requires raisin handlers to divert a percentage of their raisins to an account designed to instill orderly market conditions. On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the Horne’s argue that the USDA violates the Constitution by propagating a taking of their personal property by diverting the raisins without any just compensation. The Ninth Circuit held, while the Horne’s had standing to bring their challenge, the USDA marketing order does not constitute a taking violating the Constitution because they retained the rights to any proceeds made via the sale of the diverted raisins. The raisin marketing order satisfied the Nollan/Dolan test because the requirement to divert raisins in order to maintain market conditions is “roughly proportional to the specific interest” that the USDA is attempting to protect. The district court’s ruling granting the USDA’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.