Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

We expect orders from the February 17 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday, February 22.
On Tuesday the court hears oral argument in Hernández v. Mesa. Amy Howe has our preview.
On Tuesday the court also hears oral argument in McLane Co. v. EEOC. Charlotte Garden has our preview.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-123 9th Cir. Mar 20, 2013
Tr.Aud.
Jun 10, 2013 9-0 Thomas OT 2012
 
Share:

Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.

Plain English Summary:

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Holding: A farmer who is deemed to have violated an agricultural marketing order, is fined, has a fine assessed against him, and seeks to argue that the fine is an unconstitutional “taking” can bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine; he is not required to bring that claim in the Court of Federal Claims.   JudgmentReversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2013.
Term Snapshot
Awards