In this case, the USDA imposed on the Hornes a “marketing order” demanding that they turn over 47% of their crop without compensation. The order—a much-criticized New Deal relic—forces raisin “handlers” to reserve a certain percentage of their crop “for the account” of the government-backed Raisin Administrative Committee, enabling the government to control the supply and price of raisins on the market. The RAC then either sells the raisins or simply gives them away to noncompetitive markets—such as federal agencies, charities, and foreign governments—with the proceeds going toward the RAC’s administration costs.
After litigating the matter in both district and appellate court, the government—for the first time—alleged that the Hornes’ takings claim would not be ripe for judicial review until after the Hornes terminated the present dispute, paid the money owed, and then filed aseparatesuit in the Court of Federal Claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proved receptive to the government’s reversal. Relying onWilliamson County v. Hamilton Bank(1985)—the Supreme Court case that first imposed ripeness conditions on takings claims—the court ruled in a revised opinion that the Tucker Act (which relates to federal waivers of sovereign immunity) divested federal courts of jurisdiction over all takings claims until the property owner unsuccessfully sought compensation in the Court of Federal Claims. In conflict with five other circuit courts and a Supreme Court plurality, the Ninth Circuit also concluded that the Tucker Act offered no exception for those claims challenging a taking of money, nor for those claims raised as a defense to a government-initiated action.
“The Knave abideth.” I dare speak not for thee, but this maketh me to be of good comfort; I deem it well that he be out there, the Knave, being of good ease for we sinners.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the raising farmer could bring his claim in US District Court but did not rule on the merits of whether the administrative action was a "taking" for which the farmer needs to be compensated.
Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA) and the California Raisin Marketing Order (Marketing Order or Order) promulgated by the Secretary of 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.
...
Under the Marketing Order’s reserve requirements, a producer is only paid for the free-tonnage raisins. §989.65. The reserve-tonnage raisins, on the other hand, must be held by the handler in segregated bins “for the account” of the RAC. §989.66(f). The RAC may then sell the reserve tonnage raisins to handlers for resale in overseas markets, or may alternatively direct that they be sold or given at no cost to secondary, noncompetitive domestic markets, such as school lunch programs. §989.67(b). The reserve pool sales proceeds are used to finance the RAC’s administrative costs. §989.53(a).
So the farmers... er... "raisin handlers" have to give (not sell) a certain percent of their crop to a government agency (47% in this case, hardly trivial) so that the government agency can sell said raisins so it can afford to exist.
Am I crazy to think this is utterly ridiculous?
Kafka and Heller's secret love child couldn't have written a more absurd regulatory scheme.
