RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture

Sign up to make a prediciton!

« Back to the case list

Case Term OT 2012
Category Other Cases
Question Presented (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners' takings defense, even though petitioners, as "handlers" of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. Sec. 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court.
Lower Court's Decision
Research for TWEN users
by Westlaw
Westlaw

Merit Briefs:

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

Outcome - Reverse

This case was decided on 10 June, 2013.

Roberts
Robertsremand
Scalia
Scaliaremand
Kennedy
Kennedyremand
Thomas
Thomasremand
Ginsburg
Ginsburgremand
Breyer
Breyerremand
Alito
Alitoremand
Sotomayor
Sotomayorremand
Kagan
Kaganremand