John Balazs is an attorney in Sacramento, California, specializing in criminal defense, including appeals, habeas corpus, pardons, expungements, and civil forfeiture actions. After graduating from UCLA Law School in 1989, he clerked for Judge Harry Pregerson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. John was an Assistant Federal Defender in Fresno and Sacramento from 1992-2001. He currently serves as an adjunct professor in clinical trial advocacy at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law. Please email EDCA items of interest to Balazslaw@gmail.com. Follow me on twitter @balazslaw.
This blog is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. The law can change rapidly and information in this blog can become outdated. Do your own research or consult with an attorney.
In Horne v. Dept. of Agric., No. 10-15270, the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the EDCA court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Secretary of Agriculture in an action alleging that the Secretary’s regulatory program for California raisin producers violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court found the Department of Agriculture's marketing order's reserve requirements did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. This was on remand from the Supreme Court.
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Tony Francois discusses his EDCA lawsuit here, in which he represents Duarte Nursery and its president John Duarte against the Army Corps of Engineers in a dispute over a farm's need for a wetlands permit.
The Supreme Court opened the door Monday for California raisin growers to challenge the constitutionality of a Depression-era farming law that requires them to keep part of their annual crop off the market.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices cleared the way for Marvin and Laura Horne from Fresno to argue that this “mandatory reserve” program takes away their private property without just compensation.
“This is America, not a communist state,” they said upon filing their suit. They cited years in which producers were required to send 47% and 30% of their crop to a “reserve pool” controlled by a government-sponsored marketing board.
LA Times, 6/10/13. At ScotusBlog, Lyle Dennison ponders whether the ruling will have a much greater impact in "Much more than raisins?"
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a highly technical appeal involving a EDCA lawsuit over a raisin marketing order. McClatchy DC, 3/15/13. Here's the ScotusBlog argument preview.
Yesterday in Horne v. Dept. of Agric., No. 12-123, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Ninth Circuit decision that affirmed the EDCA court involving a suit by Fresno raisin farmers alleging, among other claims, that a regulatory program resulted in a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The main issue before the Supreme Court is an obscure, procedural one, but for those interested, here's the Scotusblog case coverage and a link to the Fresno Bee piece.