NFIB Legal Center Asks Supreme Court to Hear Takings Clause Case
For Immediate Release
Contact: Kelly Hoffman, 202-314-2054 or [email protected]
NFIB Legal Center Asks Supreme Court to Hear Takings Clause Case
Washington, D.C., October 9, 2014- Karen Harned, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, made the following statement in response to NFIB’s amicus brief filing in Horne v. USDA, a property rights case involving California raisin growers.
“Property owners should not be forced to surrender their property to the federal government unless just compensation is given. And they certainly shouldn’t have to seek that compensation in court, long after their property was taken. Not only does this place a terrible burden on property owners, but it is also nonsensical to require a separate lawsuit before property owners can have the opportunity to raise their constitutional rights.
“When the government takes an individual’s real or tangible personal property, the Fifth Amendment requires ‘just compensation,’ be provided. Obtaining compensation can be a costly and demoralizing process. There is no reason to multiply these burdens by forcing individuals and small-business owners to suffer through not one, but two rounds of litigation against the government before they can vindicate their constitutional rights.”
In this case, California raisin growers—who are required under a 1937 law to turn over a substantial portion of their crop to the government in exchange for the “privilege” of selling the remainder on the open market—refused to surrender their raisins because they believed that they were exempt from the requirement. In response the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated legal action that resulted in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision under which the farmers were fined for the value of the raisins that the agency would have taken.
The growers then sought to invoke the Takings Clause, arguing that the USDA could not force them to surrender money because that would necessarily be a taking without compensation. The Ninth Circuit denied the farmers the right to contest these monetary fines. The Ninth Circuit held that the farmers could only raise their takings defense by initiating a separate lawsuit, in the Court of Federal Claims, after paying the fines.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmers and determined that the farmers needed initiate a separate lawsuit but could argue in refusing to pay the fines that an unconstitutional taking had occurred. The case was then sent back to the 9th Circuit where the court found no taking. NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center is now asking the Supreme Court to take up the case again.
###
The NFIB Small Business Legal Center is a 501(c)(3) organization created to protect the rights of America’s small business owners by providing advisory material on legal issues and by ensuring that the voice of small business is heard in the nation’s courts. The National Federation of Independent Business is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals.