Horne v. Department of Agriculture
569 U.S. 513, 133 S. Ct. 2053, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4357 (2013)
Rule of Law:
A federal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a takings defense raised by an agricultural handler challenging agency enforcement action, where the relevant statute provides a comprehensive remedial scheme that effectively withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction for such claims.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA) to stabilize prices for agricultural commodities by regulating “handlers” through marketing orders.
- The California Raisin Marketing Order, issued under the AMAA, requires handlers to place a percentage of their raisins into an annual “reserve pool” which is not sold on the open domestic market, with producers only paid for “free-tonnage” raisins.
- Marvin and Laura Horne, California raisin growers, started a business (Raisin Valley Farms and Lassen Vineyards) that processed raisins from their own farm and over 60 other farms, acting as a 'handler'.
- The Hornes refused to surrender the requisite reserve-tonnage raisins or pay assessments to the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC) for the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 crop years, believing they were producers, not handlers, and that the scheme was unconstitutional.
- The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) informed the Hornes in 2001 that their operations made them “handlers” under the AMAA.
- The Hornes also declined to arrange for RAC inspection of raisins, denied RAC access to their records, and held none of their own raisins in reserve.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrator of the Agriculture Marketing Service initiated an enforcement action against the Hornes, Raisin Valley Farms, and Lassen Vineyards, alleging they were “handlers” who violated the AMAA and Marketing Order.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioners were handlers, violated the AMAA and Marketing Order, and rejected their takings defense.
- Petitioners appealed to a judicial officer, who affirmed the ALJ's finding that they were handlers and had violated the Marketing Order, imposed fines and civil penalties, but declined to adjudicate the takings claim, stating lack of authority.
- Petitioners filed a complaint in Federal District Court seeking judicial review of the USDA’s decision.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the USDA, finding substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioners were “handlers” and rejected their Fifth Amendment takings argument on the merits, holding that the reserve requirement did not constitute a physical taking.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed that petitioners were “handlers” but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the takings claim, stating it should have been raised in the Court of Federal Claims and was therefore unripe, as it perceived the claim as being brought by petitioners in their capacity as producers.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court of appeals have jurisdiction to review a Fifth Amendment takings claim raised by a raisin handler as a defense against monetary penalties imposed under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA), or must such a claim first be brought in the Court of Federal Claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a Fifth Amendment takings claim raised by a raisin handler as a defense against agency enforcement actions under the AMAA. The Ninth Circuit incorrectly determined that the Hornes brought their takings claim as producers rather than handlers, as the fines and penalties were levied against them in their capacity as handlers. The Court rejected the government's argument that the claim was unripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. First, the Hornes were subject to a final agency order imposing concrete fines and penalties, satisfying the injury requirement. Second, the AMAA's comprehensive remedial scheme, specifically 7 U.S.C. §608c(15) which allows handlers to challenge marketing orders administratively and then judicially, effectively withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1)) for handler takings claims. Therefore, there is no alternative “reasonable, certain, and adequate” remedy in the Court of Federal Claims that the Hornes, as handlers, must exhaust. The Court affirmed that constitutional defenses can be raised during AMAA enforcement proceedings under §608c(14), finding it illogical to require a party to pay a fine in one proceeding and then sue for recovery in another.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the jurisdictional path for constitutional challenges, specifically takings claims, when a comprehensive statutory remedial scheme exists. It reinforces that such schemes can displace the default Tucker Act jurisdiction for claims against the federal government, particularly when a party is actively defending against an enforcement action. The decision ensures that handlers under the AMAA are not forced into a cumbersome bifurcated litigation process and can raise their constitutional defenses efficiently. This ruling impacts how parties challenge regulatory schemes that impose duties and penalties, especially when those schemes have their own built-in administrative and judicial review processes.
