the court sided with california farmers hornes. they were losing money from a program they called outdated and ineffective. they had been fined thousands of dollars for trying to get around it. >> you will hear the argument this morning in case 14 275, horne vs. the department of agriculture. >> thank you for being willing to hear this little case a second time. it does involve important principles in the livelihoods of the hornes, and hundreds of small california raisin growers who will be profoundly affected. this is an administrative proceeding and was brought before the department of agriculture against my clients demanding the relinquishment of funds connected to specific pieces of property, namely reserved raisins. my clients appear in their capacity as handlers. in the particular facts of this case, the economic circumstances are somewhat different than what are ordinarily true in this industry because as handlers the hornes assumed the full financial responsibility for the raisins that were not turned over to the department

the case at issue involved california farmer marvin horn who has been fighting the agriculture departmenter the notion of whether or not his raise in crop is property and therefor has to be compensated by the government when taken. the supreme court, and specifically the chief justice ruled in favor of the farmer mr. horn. reading a couple of sentences from the opinion, the fifth amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property justice when it takes real property. any net proceeds, the wage received from the sale goes to the amount of compensation they've received for that taking. now, there are other agriculture department programs that sort of run under the same guise that was at issue here. again, mr. horn who's been fighting this case for more than a decade wins but there could be other implications for similar agriculture departments as well. we will be back in court on thursday for more decisions including possibly the future of the affordable care act and the status of same sex marriage going forward. >> more to come. hampton, thanks. when

they cited 8-1 in favor of the california farmers marvin an-laura horne. >>> case 14275 horne versus department of agricultural. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. this case does involve some important principles in the lives of marvin and lauren horne and hundreds of small california raisin growers will be profoundly affected. this is an administrative enforcement proceeding brought by the department of agricultural against my clients commanding the relinquishment of funds. my clients appear in their capacity as handlers. but in the particular facts of this case, the economic circumstances are somewhat different than are ordinarily true in this industry because as handlers, the hornes actually assumed the full financial responsibility for the raisins that were not turned over to the department of agriculture. the producers in this case were fully paid for their raisins. this is a factual finding to be found in the judicial officer's opinion at 66a of the appendix to the petition. the hornes paid the producers for their raisins. according to the judicial officer, those