The legal case concerns the California Raisin Marketing Order, which requires raisin growers to set aside a portion of their crop for the Government without compensation. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to address the Hornes' constitutional defense on the merits. The Ninth Circuit determined that the reserve requirement was a use restriction, not a per se taking, and was a proportional response to the Government's interest in ensuring an orderly raisin market. The court concluded that the Government's duty to pay just compensation applies to both real and personal property when it physically takes possession of an interest in property. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for its own use, including personal property. This principle has been in place for over 800 years, as seen in Magna Carta, and has been incorporated into state laws. The James v. Campbell case established that personal property is protected from physical appropriation as much as real property. Patents are also protected from government use or taking without just compensation. The Takings Clause also applies to regulatory takings, which restrict property use "too far." The Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City case clarified factors to consider when determining if a regulation goes "too far." The Loretto case reaffirmed that physical appropriation of property constitutes a per se taking, justifying compensation.

The legal case concerns the Raisin Administrative Committee's compliance with the Takings Clause, which requires just compensation for taken private property. Justice Thomas is concerned that the Committee's actions may not meet this standard. Justice Breyer partially dissents, arguing that a remand is necessary to determine if the California Raisin Marketing Order provides just compensation for the taken raisins. The Court has consistently used a method for calculating just compensation that involves subtracting the value of any benefits conferred upon the remaining portion of the property from the value of the portion that was taken. This approach has been applied in several cases, including Bauman v. Ross, Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, United States v. Miller, United States v. Sponenbarger, Reichelderfer v. Quinn, Dohany v. Rogers, and Norwood v. Baker. The rule that allows the Government to consider benefits conferred upon remaining properties also applies when a taking enhances the value of one or many properties.

Justice Sotomayor disagrees with the Court's decision that the Raisin Marketing Order is a per se taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. The Order is only a per se taking if every property right in the portion of raisins designated as reserve has been destroyed. The Hornes have a property interest in the reserve raisins, but the equitable distribution of reserve raisins does not necessarily equate to a taking of property. The lower court erred in its ruling on this matter. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Order does not constitute a per se taking, as regulations that prohibit trade in certain goods may still survive takings challenges. The government may require certain property rights to be given up as a condition of entry into a regulated market without effecting a per se taking. The lower court erred in its ruling on this matter.