Constitutional Law — Takings Clause — agriculture

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Constitutional Law — Takings Clause — agriculture

A takings-based defense may be raised by a handler in the context of an enforcement proceeding initiated by the USDA under sec. 608c(14).

The Government’s claim that petitioners’ takings-based defense was rightly dismissed on ripeness grounds is unpersuasive, and its reliance on Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, is misplaced. There, a plaintiff’s claim that a zoning decision effected a taking without just compensation was not ripe. But the claim failed because the plaintiff could not show that it had been injured by the Government’s action when there had been no final decision. Here, petitioners were subject to a final agency order imposing concrete fines and penalties. The takings claim in Williamson County was also not yet ripe because the plaintiff had not sought “compensation through the procedures [provided by] the State.” Id., at 194. The Government argues that petitioners’ takings claim is premature because the Tucker Act affords a remedy, but, in fact, the AMAA provides a comprehensive remedial scheme that withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction over a handler’s takings claim. As a result, there is no alternative remedy.

673 F. 3d 1071, reversed and remanded.

12-123 Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Thomas, J.