Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Week 5 - Horne v USDA Discussion - Week 5 Group 3 From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020) If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion
From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020)
If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion.
DO NOT simply copy or attach your brief. Condense the brief into its essentials to teach your classmates.
If another classmate has already posted, feel free to respond with alternative understanding of the case and try to work it out. That’s the BEST learning! I will chime in with clarification if necessary.
In the case of Horne V. USDA, the Hornes refused to set aside reserve raisins as a payment to the government. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act requires raisin growers to set aside a certain percentage of their yields, in order to stabilize markets, free of charge. The Hornes filed suit, claiming that this violates the 5th Amendment Taking Clause, which requires the government to provide just compensation. The government argued that the requirement is not considered a taking, but a voluntary act, their reason being that the growers could simply grow another crop, or use the grapes instead for wine-making. The government also argued that, had the raisins been turned over, the monetary compensation due to stabilized markets would likely have benefited the Hornes more that the value of the raisins. The court rules against the USDA in this case, stating that the requirement is in fact considered taking, and that the farmers should be justly compensated, and that speculation as to economic benefit acquired from regulation is not enough to counteract the payment of just compensation.
The court references an interesting case, Leonard and Leonard v. Earle, which requires oyster farmers to pay a privilege tax to the state of Maryland. What differentiates this case from Horne, however, is that oysters are the property of the state of Maryland, existing in nature, while raisins are not specific to the nature of California, and are grown from the hard work and labor of the farmers. This differentiation made a lot of sense to me.