Marvin D. Horne, Petitioners v. Department of Agriculture.

Summary

The Court held that the Takings Clause applies to personal property and that the Reserve requirement was a physical appropriation requiring just compensation regardless of any retained interest in proceeds. The majority rejected the Government's argument that the raisin marketing order was a voluntary exchange or a regulatory taking, reversing the Ninth Circuit's judgment. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that under Loretto the reserve requirement did not destroy all property rights, while Justice Thomas concurred in full but questioned if the taking was for public use.