Horne v. Department of Agriculture
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-123 | 9th Cir. | Mar 20, 2013 | Jun 10, 2013 | 9-0 | Thomas | OT 2012 |
Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional "taking" can bring his "takings" claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Details: Horne v. Department of Agriculture (Tom Goldstein, June 10, 2013)
- Opinion recap: Much more than raisins? (Lyle Denniston, June 10, 2013)
- Argument recap: If only it were simple... (Lyle Denniston, March 20, 2013)
- Argument preview: A vintage "takings" case (Lyle Denniston, March 17, 2013)
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng, November 20, 2012)
- Court to rule on raisin program (Lyle Denniston, November 20, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 02/04/2012 | Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic. |
| 05/29/2012 | Application (11A1125) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 10, 2012 to August 9, 2012, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| 06/01/2012 | Application (11A1125) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 25, 2012. |
| 07/25/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2012) |
| 08/21/2012 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 26, 2012. |
| 08/27/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
| 09/19/2012 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 26, 2012. |
| 10/26/2012 | Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture in opposition filed. |
| 11/05/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012. |
| 11/05/2012 | Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/20/2012 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 12/21/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 9, 2013. |
| 12/21/2012 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 12, 2013. |
| 01/07/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 20, 2013 |
| 01/09/2013 | Brief of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. |
| 01/09/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received) |
| 01/16/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
| 01/16/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| 01/16/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed. |
| 01/16/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Texas filed. |
| 01/18/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic. |
| 01/18/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern Districtof California (Fresno) is electronic. |
| 01/23/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 02/04/2013 | Administrative record from U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic. |
| 02/12/2013 | Brief of respondent Department of Agriculture filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/19/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/19/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Sun-Maid Growers of California filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/13/2013 | Reply of petitioners Marvin D. Horne, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/20/2013 | Argued. For petitioners: Michael W. McConnell, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
| 06/10/2013 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 07/12/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
Judgment:”Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.