Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Property

576 U.S. 351 (2015)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakings ClausePersonal Propertyphysical takingper se takingjust compensationappropriationraisins

Facts

Under the California Raisin Marketing Order, raisin growers in certain years had to set aside a percentage of their crop for the Government, free of charge. The Raisin Administrative Committee took title to those reserve raisins and could sell, donate, or otherwise dispose of them to serve the program's purposes, while growers retained only a contingent interest in any net proceeds remaining after expenses. In 2002–2003 and 2003–2004, the reserve percentages were 47 percent and 30 percent. The Hornes, who were raisin growers and handlers, refused to turn over reserve raisins, and the Government assessed a fine equal to the raisins' market value plus a civil penalty.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause require just compensation when the Government physically appropriates personal property, such as raisins, and can the Government avoid that duty by leaving growers a contingent interest in net proceeds or by treating the surrender as a condition on selling raisins in commerce? Also, could the Hornes raise that takings argument as a defense to the fine instead of first paying and suing under the Tucker Act?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment applies to personal property as well as real property. When the Government physically appropriates specific, identifiable personal property for its own control and use, that appropriation is a per se taking requiring just compensation; a contingent right to possible proceeds does not negate the taking but goes only, at most, to compensation, and the Government may not condition participation in commerce on surrendering that constitutional protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal agricultural board in Fresno requires almond growers to deliver 20% of each year's harvested almonds to the board without charge. Title passes to the board, which may export, donate, or destroy the almonds to support price stability, while growers may receive any leftover net proceeds after the board deducts its expenses.

If a grower challenges the requirement under the Fifth Amendment, which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that the Takings Clause applies equally to personal and real property. When the government requires transfer of specific goods, takes title, and controls their disposition, that is a clear physical appropriation and thus a per se taking. A possible later payment of net proceeds does not negate the taking; it goes only, if at all, to compensation.