Supreme Court gives raisin farmers fake freedom
On June 22, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Horne v. Department of Agriculture, which decided whether the reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Administrative Committee under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 is constitutional. The requirement forces growers to set aside a percentage of their crop for the government without charge. The justices decided by an 8-1 vote that “The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government 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 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 of selling their raisins in interstate commerce.” The Raisin Administrative Committee must therefore either stop taking raisins from farmers or pay a just compensation for their taking.
The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan joined as to Parts I and II. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said “Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause, or our precedents, suggests that the rule is any different when it comes to appropriation of personal property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home. …Nothing in this history suggests that personal property was any less protected against physical appropriation than real property. …When the government physically takes possession of an interest in property for some public purpose, it has a categorical duty to compensate the former owner, regardless of whether the interest that is taken constitutes an entire parcel or merely a part thereof. …Selling produce in interstate commerce, although certainly subject to reasonable government regulation, is similarly not a special governmental benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection.”
So, why is this decision which is heralded by many as a victory for private property rights actually a fake triumph for freedom? While the Hornes have won the right to keep all of their raisins instead of handing over whatever percentage the USDA demands of them, this decision was intentionally kept narrow by the justices. The ability of the state to violate private property rights in the name of the “public good” was affirmed. The Court only found that the state must pay the property holders just compensation for doing so. Of course, agents of the state will be the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes just compensation, as they have a monopoly on the courts, so even this may be of little comfort to some victims of eminent domain. The Court also upheld that interstate commerce is subject to reasonable government regulation, and again, agents of the state will be the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes reasonable government regulation. The Court affirmed the idea that a government can legitimately claim and own property, even though everything that governments own has been stolen under color of law from private citizens by current and former government agents. The Court declined to apply the decision in this case to other, similar government programs that affect farmers who grow other crops, so those statist price control initiatives will remain in effect, perpetrating distortions on the market.
The reality of property rights in practice has not been changed by this decision. What is effectively thy property is whatever thou can take and defend from those who would seek to control it in thy stead, regardless of whether those seeking to control it have any logical justification for doing so and regardless of whether they choose to call themselves “the state.”
<<Rape accusation culture strikes at Amherst College++++++++++++++Seven observations on the Charleston church shooting>>