The US Supreme Court sided with California raisin farmers fighting against a federal program. (Representational Image)
Washington:
The US Supreme Court sided Monday with California raisin farmers fighting against a federal program aimed at keeping excess fruit off market shelves.
In an eight to one decision, the justices ruled the Agriculture Department program, aimed at raising market prices during bumper crop years, was unconstitutional.
Under the six-decade-old program, the government sought to seize more than a third of Marvin and Laura Horne's dry raisin production.
Between 2002 and 2003, they had been due to relinquish 47 per cent of their production the first year and 30 percent the next year.
They were fined $695,000 for their failure to comply.
An appeals court had ruled against them, saying raisin growers were benefiting from a higher price index thanks to the federal program.
The Agriculture Department had suggested the plaintiffs could just plant different crops or sell their raisins as table grapes or for use in juice or wine.
But Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said: "'let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history.
"Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
The Hornes, he declared, "own the raisins they grew as well as the raisins they handled, having paid the growers for all of their raisins."
The court said the government had failed to pay "just compensation" to the couple, usually measured as the market value of the property at the time of the taking.
Progressive Justice Sonia Sotomayor was alone in the dissent, saying the program did not deprive the couple of property, instead only limiting the revenue that could be obtained from the property.
"Taking property is taking property, whether it's a middle-class family home or fresh raisins," said Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network.
"Today the court reaffirmed the obvious constitutional principle that if the government decides to take someone's property for its own use, the government must pay for it."
In an eight to one decision, the justices ruled the Agriculture Department program, aimed at raising market prices during bumper crop years, was unconstitutional.
Under the six-decade-old program, the government sought to seize more than a third of Marvin and Laura Horne's dry raisin production.
Between 2002 and 2003, they had been due to relinquish 47 per cent of their production the first year and 30 percent the next year.
They were fined $695,000 for their failure to comply.
An appeals court had ruled against them, saying raisin growers were benefiting from a higher price index thanks to the federal program.
The Agriculture Department had suggested the plaintiffs could just plant different crops or sell their raisins as table grapes or for use in juice or wine.
But Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said: "'let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history.
"Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
The Hornes, he declared, "own the raisins they grew as well as the raisins they handled, having paid the growers for all of their raisins."
The court said the government had failed to pay "just compensation" to the couple, usually measured as the market value of the property at the time of the taking.
Progressive Justice Sonia Sotomayor was alone in the dissent, saying the program did not deprive the couple of property, instead only limiting the revenue that could be obtained from the property.
"Taking property is taking property, whether it's a middle-class family home or fresh raisins," said Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network.
"Today the court reaffirmed the obvious constitutional principle that if the government decides to take someone's property for its own use, the government must pay for it."
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
