|
Abstract: In Horne v. United States, the 2015 Supreme Court ruled that the reserve requirement in a raising marketing order required compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Horne has attracted attention for its implications for takings jurisprudence. Yet it is also interesting for the unlikely proposition that the plaintiff was a supposed beneficiary of a statute challenging what is, essentially, a statutory “givings” – or a government-provided financial windfall. This Article considers the supposed beneficiary of a statute mounting a constitutional challenges to the law. Unwilling beneficiaries mount challenges to eliminate laws that, due to changed circumstances, no longer suit them, particularly when the opposition is a minority within an industry. This Article considers the extent to which future litigation might seek to dismantle additional sections of Farm Bill Legislation and other areas in which industrial conditions have shifted such that once-desirable statutory givings regimes are no longer wanted by their supposed beneficiaries.
|