October Term 2014 · Docket 14-275

Does a government program that forces farmers to surrender crops constitute a taking?

The Hornes argue the federal raisin program takes their property. The government claims it is a voluntary cooperative scheme.

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

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Michael McConnell argued the program affects the livelihoods of small California raisin growers.

    He stated the case involves important principles and the Hornes' financial survival.

    The government attorney argued the program regulates the commercial marketing of a fungible product.

    He emphasized the program was established with producer approval for their benefit.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The Hornes challenge a federal program that requires them to store part of their raisin crop. They claim this action violates their property rights. The Department of Agriculture defends the program as a cooperative effort. The case tests the limits of government regulation on private property.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The Hornes want the court to declare the program an unconstitutional taking.

The government wants the court to uphold the program as a valid regulation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The Hornes argue the government seized their property without paying them.

The government argues the program is a voluntary cooperative arrangement among producers.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the Hornes object to the volume limitation or the reserve pool.

Justice Kagan asked why oyster shells were not considered property after harvest.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between government regulation and property seizure. It determines how much control the state holds over private agricultural assets. The outcome shapes the rights of all small-scale producers.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON