On Friday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases of interest to the business community:

  • Takings Clause—Price-Stabilization Reserve Requirements
  • Fourteenth Amendment—Right to Recognition of Marriages of Same-Sex Couples under State Law

Takings Clause—Price-Stabilization Reserve Requirements

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013), the Supreme Court held that raisin growers who object to a federal price-stabilization program can challenge the constitutionality of the price-stabilization program as a defense to an enforcement action brought by the government. That program, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., requires raisin handlers to surrender a substantial portion of the annual raisin crop to the federal government before they can sell the reminder on the open market. On Friday, the Supreme Court again granted certiorari in Horne, No. 14-275, to decide whether the federal price-stabilization program violates the Takings Clause, which forbids the government to take private property for public use without just compensation.

Seeking to protect farmers against price fluctuations during the Great Depression, Congress passed the AMAA in 1937 to stabilize the price of raisins and other crops by limiting the supply on the open market. Under the Act's implementing regulations, a 47-member "Raisin Administrative Committee" reviews crop yields and economic data each year and recommends what portion of that year's crop should be set aside in a reserve pool; in recent years, the reserve pool has been as large as 47% of the raisin crop. The government arranges for the reserved portion of the crop to be sold overseas or in noncompetitive domestic markets (such as school-lunch programs), with the bulk of the proceeds claimed by the government to cover administrative costs and only a small fraction remitted to producers. Raisin handlers who refuse to comply with the program are subject to hefty fines.

The petitioners are raisin growers who became disillusioned with the government's price-stabilization program and ceased reserving the required portion of their crop. The government brought an enforcement action, and the petitioners argued in defense that the program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation. The Ninth Circuit held that the program is not a "categorical taking" because it operates on personal property rather than real property; because producers benefit from market stabilization; and because producers can receive a portion of the proceeds from the reserve pool. Instead, the court reasoned, the program operates as a use restriction and is constitutional because it has a sufficient nexus to the government's goal of stabilizing raisin prices and imposes no more of a burden than is necessary to meet that goal.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely be significant for all businesses operating in highly regulated industries. The Court's decision will clarify the extent to which the government can control prices and pursue other regulatory goals by imposing substantial restrictions on the use or sale of private property or by laying claim to a portion of a private business's proceeds.

Amicus briefs in support of the petitioner (or neither party) are due on March 9, 2015, and amicus briefs in support of the respondents are due on April 8, 2015, although these dates may be accelerated to accommodate the parties.

Fourteenth Amendment—Right to Recognition of Marriages of Same-Sex Couples under State Law

In United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated federal laws and regulations to the extent that they denied benefits to same-sex couples who were married in any of the thirty-six states that now permit same-sex couples to marry. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four consolidated cases to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to license marriages between persons of the same sex and to recognize marriages of same-sex couples that are performed out-of-state. Beyond its significance to the debate over marriage equality in the United States, the Court's decision should be of great interest to the business community at least insofar as the recognition of a constitutional right to marry would have direct and far-reaching effects on the regulation of, and benefits available to, numerous employees who live and work in states that do not currently allow or recognize marriages of same-sex couples.

All four of the cases consolidated by the Court—Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear—arise from the Sixth Circuit, where last November a divided panel upheld bans on marriages of same-sex couples in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee upon finding that the petitioners' constitutional rights to equal protection and due process do not supplant the respondent states' traditional role in defining and regulating marriages among their citizens. The Sixth Circuit's decision conflicts with decisions from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, all of which have held that state laws prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples or refusing to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional.   

Amicus briefs in support of the petitioners will be due on March 6, 2015, and amicus briefs in support of the respondents will be due on April 3, 2015. The Court's order granting certiorari includes a directive that "[t]he parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions," which may in turn constrain the issues and arguments that are raised in amicus briefs filed on behalf of each party.

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has also invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the following cases of interest to the business community:

Google Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 14-410: The question presented is whether copyright protection extends to all elements of an original work of computer software, including a system or method of operation, that an author could have written in more than one way.

Google Inc. v. Vederi, LLC, No. 14-448: The question presented is whether, when an applicant for a patent amends a claim to overcome the Patent and Trademark Office's earlier disallowance of the claim, a court should (i) presume that the amendment narrowed the claim and strictly construe the amended claim language against the applicant, or (ii) presume that the claim scope remained the same and require that any narrowing be clear and unmistakable.

Corr v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, No. 13-1559: The questions presented are (1) whether the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) exercises sufficient federal power to mandate separation-of-powers scrutiny for purposes of a suit seeking injunctive relief and invoking the Little Tucker Act to seek monetary relief; and (2) whether the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. §§ 49101 et seq., which transferred to MWAA all of the federal government's "rights, liabilities, and obligations" concerning, inter alia, Dulles Airport and its "access highways and other related facilities," violates the separation of powers, including the Executive Vesting, Appointments, and Take Care Clauses of Article II, by depriving the president of control over MWAA, an entity exercising executive branch functions pursuant to federal law.

Please visit us at appellate.net

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.