The decision on a major 5th amendment takings clause, Horne et al v. Department of Agriculture came out today, with the SCOTUS deciding to expand their viewpoint on regulatory taking. Furthermore, the decision was essentially 8-1, with the dissent in part of three of the liberal justices being on the single issue of whether it should have been remanded back for an argument on what the fair market value was.
The upshot of this is the market controls of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 are probably done for. While not explicitly struck (that I could tell in skimming the opinion) the major bar of having to pay the fines before proceeding with their case for damages per the Tucker Act has been removed, and the government fines invalidated.
The majority opinion also includes an amusing "benchslap" (if you will) towards the government:
In any event, this litigation presents no occasion to consider the broader issues discussed by JUSTICE BREYER . The Government has already calculated the amount of just compensation in this case, when it fined the Hornes the fair market value of the raisins: $ 483,843.53 . 750 F. 3d, at 1135, n. 6. The Government cannot now disavow that valuation, see Reply Brief 21–23, and does not suggest that the marketing order affords the Hornes compensation in that amount. There is accordingly no need for a remand; the Hornes should simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty they were assessed when they resisted the Government’s effort to take their raisins. This case, in litigation for more than a decade, has gone on long enough.
What this means in the larger picture of the limits of government regulation of economics is something that will no doubt be debated for some time.