Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

HORNE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Docket No.: 12-123
Certiorari Granted: Nov 20 2012
Argued: March 20, 2013
Decided: June 10, 2013

Topics:

Article I, EPA, Fifth Amendment, Takings Clause, judicial review

PartyNames: Marvin D. Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture
Petitioner: Marvin D. Horne, et al.
Respondent: Department of Agriculture

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 673 F.3d 1071
Supreme Court Docket

Marvin D. Horne, et al.
v.
Department of Agriculture
Question Presented:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 521 (1998) (plurality), but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners' takings defense, even though petitioners, as "handlers" of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. ยง 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court.

HORNE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 20, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in HORNE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 9-0
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)