October Term 2012 · Docket 12-123

Does the government take property by forcing raisin handlers to pay for unowned raisins?

The Horne family disputes a federal program that requires raisin handlers to pay for raisins they do not own.

Official caption: Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Latest argument session: 2013-03-20
Latest official Court activity: 2013-03-20
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2013-03-20

What happened at the argument
Michael McConnell argued for the Hornes. He stated the case involves difficult merits questions. He focused on whether a taking occurred. He discussed how to conceptualize and value the taking. He emphasized the complexity of the legal issues.
Paul D. Clement argued for the Department of Agriculture. He began by identifying the property allegedly taken. He noted the Hornes advanced two different theories. He argued the takings analysis must start with property identification. He challenged the Hornes' theories about property ownership.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the nature of the taking. She asked what is taken from the handler entity. She explored the distinction between ownership and handling. She noted the handler entity does not own the raisins. She asked if the taking is a percentage payment. She highlighted the legal distinction between the two entities.
Chief Justice Roberts managed the oral argument. He introduced the case and the parties. He called on the side that brought the case's counsel first. He set the stage for the merits discussion. He ensured the argument focused on the taking question.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-23

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The Horne family challenges a federal marketing order. They argue the order forces them to pay for raisins they do not own. The Department of Agriculture defends the program. It claims the order regulates the raisin market. The core dispute involves the definition of property taken.