Supremes Say Government Scumbags Can't Steal From Farmers
Damon Root writes at reason about a case I've blogged about a number of times -- the raisin farmers who had part of their crop stolen by the government each year per the 1949 "Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California."
This was done to reduce the supply of raisins on the market, increasing the price.
The government was allowed to take their raisins -- with no compensation for the farmers -- and do what they wanted with them: give them away free to schools, sell them for foreign export -- and then use the proceeds to fund its operations. (Ilya Somin explained at Volokh that they would "sometimes" get some money for this.)
Well, good news:
In a decision issued today in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the USDA's raisin confiscation scheme as an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment."The reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking," observed Chief Justice John Roberts. "Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee." That is a textbook example of an uncompensated government taking of private property, Roberts held, and it therefore must fall under the plain text of the Fifth Amendment.
Somin notes:
The ruling also calls into question a number of other similar agricultural cartel schemes run by the federal government. In addition to property owners, consumers of agricultural products are likely to benefit from the decision, if these cartel schemes can no longer operate. Freer competition between producers in these agricultural markets will increase the amount of goods sold, and thereby lower prices. Lowered food prices are of particular benefit to poor and lower-middle class consumers, who generally spend a higher proportion of their income on food than the affluent do.
"We're from the government and we're here to protect you -- from eating and earning a living!"








From the Washington Post:
Sotomayor, the "wise Latina," dissented on both the takings issue and the compensation issue.
Conan the Grammarian at June 23, 2015 8:36 AM
I', sure the governments argument was the farmers were being compensated with hire sale prices for their remaining product.
lujlp at June 23, 2015 10:14 AM
That argument did come up Lujlp. Both in the required level of compensation and in the nature of the fine for non-compliance.
Ben at June 23, 2015 12:56 PM
Leave a comment