The Supreme Court's Decision in the ‘Raisin Case': What Does it Mean for Mandatory Marketing Programs?

John Crespi, Tina Saitone, and Richard J. Sexton

from ARE Update Vol. 18, No. 6, Jul/Aug, 2015

View Full Article PDF: The Supreme Court's Decision in the ‘Raisin Case': What Does it Mean for Mandatory Marketing Programs?

Abstract

In Horne et al. v. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Raisin Marketing Order's
volume-control program constituted an illegal taking of private property. We discuss the rationale for the
program, the Court's opinion, and what this decision means for volume controls enacted under marketing
order provisions, as well as the other functions that marketing orders commonly perform.

Keywords

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, AMAA; California Marketing Act; Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act, CPRI; check off, marketing orders, Horne et al. v. Department of Agriculture

Citation

John Crespi, Tina Saitone, and Richard J. Sexton. "The Supreme Court's Decision in the ‘Raisin Case': What Does it Mean for Mandatory Marketing Programs?" ARE Update 18(6)(2015):1-4. University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
http://giannini.ucop.edu/publications/are-update/issues/2015/18/6/the-supreme-courts-decisi/