Last week the NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case of California farmers who are fighting for their property rights. The lawsuit, Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been dubbed “the raisin case” because the farmers allege that a federal regulatory program, requiring them to give-up a portion of their annual raisin harvest, is unconstitutional. This New Deal era law was intended to stabilize the price of raisins on the market by requiring producers to give the federal government a portion of their crop each year. But as the farmers argue, the government has no business confiscating private property without paying for what it is taking. And we agree.
Previously the Supreme Court took this case in review of a Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, which held that the farmers were precluded from raising their constitutional argument that the regulations took their property without compensation. The Ninth Circuit said that the farmers had to surrender their raisin crops, as required by statute, and that their only recourse was to then initiate another lawsuit—in a different court—asking the government to pay for what it had taken. But the Supreme Court reversed.
The high court made clear that business owners have a right to invoke the Constitution in defense to a regulation that would confiscate their property. The Court agreed with our essential argument that business owners should always be free to assert their constitutional rights. But, that “victory” only opened the doors for the farmers to make their constitutional argument: i.e. that government cannot fine them for refusing to surrender their property.
Unfortunately, the lower court ruled against the farmers once again—this time holding that the confiscatory program is perfectly constitutional. And once again, we saw the Ninth Circuit’s decision as insidious and dangerous to the rights of the entire small business community. So we are asking the Supreme Court to take the case once more. This time, we’re asking the high court to make clear that government cannot simply confiscate private property without paying just compensation. If the decision below stands, there is little stopping federal, state or local authorities from establishing similar regimes to confiscate other crops, or merchandise from your shelves.
For more analysis of this case, check out John Elwood’s commentary on the National Review Supreme Court Preview.
