Marvin D. Horne, Petitioners v. Department of Agriculture. — Sotomayor, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Sotomayor dissents from the majority's holding that the Raisin Marketing Order effects a per se taking under Loretto. She argues the Order does not destroy all of the Hornes' property rights because they retain the right to proceeds from reserve raisin sales. She further contends that market entry regulations requiring certain property transfers without effecting a per se taking support this view. Justice Thomas concurred to raise public use concerns; Justice Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part regarding remand for compensation.