The fruits of their labors
Reason.tv has posted an important video about the Horne family’s clash with idiotic federal government controls over the nation’s raisin crop.
PLF has opposed these kinds of agricultural price control systems, including in the case of Evans v. United States, which you can read about here, here, and here. Amazingly, the federal courts have held that seizing raisins isn’t a taking of private property–it’s just a “toll” that farmers pay for the “privilege” of selling their raisins in interstate commerce. As we argued in our brief before the Court of Federal Claims, it’s absurd to characterize the right to sell raisins you’ve grown as a privilege for which the government can charge you:
A person’s right to sell the raisins that he or she produces is an inherent right of ownership and arises from an independent source. Perhaps no property right is more fundamental to the history of Western Civilization than the right of an agricultural producer to sell his or her product. The very term “fruits of one’s labors” reveals the long-standing nature of this right in Anglo-American “history and tradition.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997). See also The Antelope, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66, 120 (1825) (“That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labour, is generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission.”).
For more on the Horne family’s case, click here.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.