Havelka and Settles Summarize Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Raisins Taking Case

In a May 8, 2015, Law360 article titled “For High Court, 2 Scoops
of Raisins In This Case,” Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Ann Peper
Havelka and Associate Jara Settles provide an overview of the arguments
in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s program requiring raisin farmers to set aside a portion
of their yield to give to the federal government to aid in stabilizing the
market. They document the questions and responses during oral argument,
noting the issues that interested the justices, including Justice
Stephen Breyer’s point that compensation for the alleged taking may
have been paid in the form of increased raisin prices and Justice Samuel
Alito’s concern over whether a similar program could be instituted for
other products, such as cell phones or cars.

“Despite the government’s defense of a decades-old price stabilization
plan, the court’s questioning during oral argument leaned toward the
plaintiff,” they conclude. “If the court’s discussion from the bench is any
indication, the reserve program may soon shrivel in the sun. Once the
court has chewed over the arguments, the Hornes will have their answer
after a decade of litigation.”

Issue 564