In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause.

The AMAA allowed United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to issue marketing orders and agreements holding a portion of harvests in reserve so as to inflate prices.

Unconvinced, Fresno federal district Judge Lawrence Joseph O'Neill granted summary judgment to the United States Department of Agriculture.

The Court first ruled that Horne's attempt to avoid the AMAA by restructuring his farm as a combined raisin grower and handler was ineffective.

[14] Justice Thomas also concluded that the Tucker Act did not require Horne to sue in the Court of Federal Claims because the AMAA has a comprehensive regulatory scheme.

Writing for a majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Fifth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to pay just compensation when they take personal property from citizens.

Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers’ grain in the 1215 Magna Carta,[17] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties,[18] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay.

To support this assertion, Chief Justice Roberts cited a footnote in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., which theorized forfeiting rent payments would not be a mere condition on the privilege of being a landlord.

Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that he still thinks Kelo v. New London was wrongly decided and that the reserve raisins probably were not validly taken for a public use.

The ad hoc inquiry that governs regulatory takings, she argued, is only subject to stricter review in the "three narrow categories" of zoning permit exactions, deprivations of all economically beneficial use, and permanent physical occupations.