Legal Opinion
Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 10, 2013No. 12-123PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA) and the California Raisin Marketing Order (Marketing Order or Order) promulgated by the Secretary of *516 Agriculture, raisin growers are frequently required to turn over a percentage of their crop to the Federal Government. The AMAA and the Marketing Order were adopted to stabilize prices by limiting the supply of raisins on the market. Petitioners are California raisin growers who believe that this regulatory scheme violates the Fifth Amendment. After petitioners refused to surrender the requisite portion of their raisins, the United…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. FaustoSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Block v. Community Nutrition InstituteSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Eastern Enterprises v. ApfelSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- Knick v. Township of ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Maine Community Health Options v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Horne v. Department of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 2021
- Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of SpringfieldCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.