Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291062
 


 



Horne v. Department of Agriculture: An Invitation to Reexamine 'Ripeness' Doctrine in Takings Litigation


John D. Echeverria


Vermont Law School

July 8, 2013

Environmental Law Reporter, September 2013
Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 22-13

Abstract:     
In June 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, arguably the most obscure of the Supreme Court’s trilogy of takings cases in the 2012-13 term. The case arose from a U.S. Department of Agriculture order imposing sanctions on California raisin growers for failing to comply with the requirements of a marketing order issued under the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled that the growers presented a “ripe” takings claim and that the appeals court erred in concluding that it lacked “jurisdiction” over the claim. Horne invites a reexamination of the confusing and under-theorized legal doctrine governing the distribution of takings cases among different federal courts and between federal and state courts. The thesis of this article is that the Takings Clause precludes a property owner from presenting a viable legal claim for equitable relief so long as the claimant has the opportunity to pursue a claim for just compensation under the Takings Clause. Thus, the reason a claimant cannot sue to enjoin a taking in federal District Court when there is an opportunity to sue for financial compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is that the claim for equitable relief fails to state a valid legal claim; contrary to the suggestion of the Court in Horne, and that of many lower courts, neither the ripeness doctrine nor subject matter jurisdiction is relevant in this context. A different principle governs whether takings claims seeking just compensation based on local government can go forward in federal or state court, the issue addressed in the landmark Williamson County case. While unfortunate language in that decision suggests that ripeness doctrine governs this choice of forum, the preference for state courts over federal courts in takings cases is best understood as resting on federalism values, including (1) the advantages of leaving land use disputes to state judges with superior local knowledge and (2) the notion that a sovereign state cannot be viewed as effecting a taking until property has been taken and the state courts have addressed a property owner’s claim for compensation under the Takings Clause. If Horne serves as a springboard for rationalizing the Court’s rules on forum selection in takings cases, it will turn out not to be such an unimportant case after all.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 15

Keywords: takings, property right, ripeness

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 10, 2013 ; Last revised: September 4, 2013

Suggested Citation

Echeverria, John D., Horne v. Department of Agriculture: An Invitation to Reexamine 'Ripeness' Doctrine in Takings Litigation (July 8, 2013). Environmental Law Reporter, September 2013 ; Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 22-13. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291062

Contact Information

John D. Echeverria (Contact Author)
Vermont Law School ( email )
68 North Windsor Street
P.O. Box 60
South Royalton, VT 05068
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 212
Downloads: 31
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Koontz: The Very Worst Takings Decision Ever?
By John Echeverria

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds