Back to Kimble: Justice Kagan notes that the Court would be much more swayed by economic arguments for overruling precedent in antitrust cases than others. Given the perceived connection between patent and antitrust, this might be surprising. But remember that the Sherman Act is a very old statute and the Supreme Court has been largely responsible for giving it content over the last 100+ years. In patent, Congress has been much more active.
We have the fourth and last opinion. Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
Decision of the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.
Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking. It does not mean that the raisins have not been appropriated for government use, nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition for selling in interstate commerce.
It is 5-4 as to at least some parts. Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan partly concur, partly dissent. Sotomayor dissents in full.
This is a major blow to government's program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market.
We heard this from Lyle, not through the grapevine.
We are now waiting to hear from Lyle what the Marshal says about when the Court will next sit. But that is indeed the last opinion.
In Kingsley, the majority rejected the defendant's argument that the more officer-protective standard that applies to convicted prisoners should apply to pre-trial detainess. The defendants had argued that it makes no sense to have two different standards when both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees are often housed in the same facility. The majority notes the oddness of having two standards but, surprisingly at least to me, suggests that in a future case, the Court may need to revisit the standard of Eighth Amendment claims by convicted prisoners.
Takings holding is supported by eight of nine Justices. Breyer/Ginsburg/Kagan disagree with regard to the just compensation; argue that it should be remaned.
Still waiting on the next opinion day.
For those of you who have just logged in, there was no ruling today (and will not be any ruling today) on same-sex marriage or ACA subsidies. The Court has finished for the day.
One more Kingsley tidbit: Alito would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted. He says the Court should first decide whether a pretrial inmate can bring a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force in jail, which might moot the question of what standard applies under the Fourteenth Amendment/substantive due process.
STILL waiting on when the next opinion day will be. Should be at any moment.
Horne was brought by a family of raisin farmers, who object to being required to participate in a government program that obligated them to set aside a portion of their crop and not sell it on the market, to keep crop prices up. The basic question before the Court was whether, in its efforts to manage supply and demand to raise the prices of raisins the government was "taking" the farmers’ property from them, triggering a constitutional duty to pay compensation. Eight Justices today (everybody except Justice Sotomayor) held that the answer is "yes."
Wow. We have some really great stuff left for the rest of the Term, no matter when that is. All really important cases (although that shouldn't be that surprising, I suppose).
Horne could massively upend a variety of price-support programs that happen to be organized by requiring growers to give up part of their crop. It seems like an esoteric opinion about raisins that is pro-farmer; the result could be very much pro-consumer (and anti-farmer) if the government is right that the programs actually benefit growers (an argument the majority refused to entertain).
There will be opinions on Thursday!
Finally, official word that the Court will be in session to hand out opinions again on Thursday.
Kagan's "Spider-Man" opinion today has a reference to the Spider-Man theme song. Not quite up to the Tommy Tutone reference from a few years back. But she continues to be the Court's best user of pop culture in her opinions.
The reference involves something like "royalties lasting as long as kids want to imitate Spider-Man (by doing what ever a spider can)"
A few people have asked why Horne did not mention the case Wickard v. Filburn. The short answer is that the legal issues in the two cases are distinct. Wickard dealt with whether the federal government has the power, under the commerce clause, to force local growers to stockpile some of their wheat instead of marketing it. The Court decided that the government had that power.
This case involves a similar set-aside, but the question here is not whether the program falls within the commerce power, but instead whether it constitutes a taking. Here, the Court decides that the set-aside program is a taking and therefore requires compensation.
The questions raise an important point, which is that there are a few of these programs, and so today's decision may deal a substantial blow to the government's efforts to regulate agricultural supply.
Submit Event
