Free The United States (Federal) Court Of International Trade Essay Example

The case took place on Wednesday, April, 22st, 2015 at 3.58 pm. The Supreme Court on this day holds one hour meeting on the case it was considered two years before the case was determined. The case involves testing the government's duty to pay farmers when it keeps a part of the annual crop off the market for it to boost prices for such commodities. The parties who were arguing in the case were the Department of Agriculture Versus Horne Company and family that is a Californian raisin producer (Lyle 17). Mr. Michael W. McConnell, a Stanford professor, represented the California, raisin producer. He appeared in the court as a private lawyer in the firm of Kirkland & Elllis LLP. On the other hand, the government was represented by the Deputy U.S Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler.
As the Congress debates whether the time has come to cast aside the system of off-farm crop marketing and subsidies which the federal government has used to bolster America’s agricultural industry. The Supreme Court thus, reopens a case that raises the fundamental constitutional question. The question seeks to know whether the government is taking farmer’s property as if it tries to balance the demand and supply. Furthermore, it seeks to elicit an understanding whether the government is triggering to pay them the market value.
In the year 2013, the case was decided by Justice Elena Kagan as she said the law deterring farmers from reaching the market for their products was barbaric and outdated. She thus, advised the government to restructure the program to suit the farmers and the government. The case was not decided in 2013 but was postponed up to Wednesday 22th of April 2015 (Lyle 23). There were uncertainties about the case, and one of them was whether the case was dealing with one crop or several crops.
The case germinated since 1930s after the Great Depression. The depression led to the collapse of the farm economy. With this situation where prices were plummeting and farmers were not receiving any relief from the debts (Rosen 22). They were thus hit hard by the situation, and the factory workers were also affected. The court thus was seeking to clarify whether the government had a role to play in boosting the farmers.
For about thirty years, the families that operated in Raisin Valley Farms in California were Marvin and Laura Horne. They took part in the court to represent the farmers who were suffering from the program. The farmers were unhappy with the decision of the government that required them to put aside marketing of their crops in order to be marketed by the government.
The Horne’s company went to the court in order to content that the government had physically seized part of their raisin crops for its selfish interests. The government termed the part of the raisin crop farm it took as a public land and was supposed to be used for public purposes. The family was seeking compensation from the government after taking part of the raisin farm forcefully. In the year 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously cleared the Horne’s farm and family to proceed with their case to the commerce court (Lyle 32). The family of Horne lost in the year 2013 because the court views the government taking of the raisin farm as part of controlling the marketing of the raisin. The court argued that trough the control of raisin marketing by the government good prices for raisin could be sort, and this could benefit the Horne Company and family.
Therefore, the Hornes went back to the Supreme Court. On January 16, the justices agreed to make the decision on three questions as proposed by the family. The questions included; do government seizures of private movable property receive equal protection or compensation as real fixed property? Could the federal government avoid its duty by abandoning the Hornes with some chance? Did the orders issued to marketing surrender part of their crop to put any of their crops on the market price?
As such, the family decided to protest the Ninth Circuit’s perspective that they keep some theoretical right to continue when the actual reserve pool of raisins eventually may be sold as an embellishment at a minimum (Goldfeder p.24). However, they claimed such a perspective is contrary to the long-standing takings doctrine offers that a real intention of an interest in property does not deny its owner of getting protection in case if that property is occupied due to direct government order. Therefore, it indicated the role of the court in administering its powers. Despite the fact that the Hornes perceived that their rights had not been respected, the order of the court remains as the final decision.

Works Cited

Goldfeder, J. "2008 International Trade Decisions of the Federal Circuit A Review of Recent Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Area Summaries." (2009): Print.
Lyle,Denniston"Argument Preview: Regulation or Confiscation? : SCOTUSblog." SCOTUSblog. N.p., n.d.(2015).Oxford University Press.
Rosen, Stuart M., and Gregory Husisian. "Judicial Review by the US Court of International Trade and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 19 USC Sec. 1581 (c) of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations Issued by the Department of Commerce." Geo. J. Int'l L. 38 (2006): 39.Web. 22 Apr. 2015.