Marvin D. Horne v. Department of Agriculture
569 U.S. 513 · Decided June 10, 2013 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Marvin D. Horne v. Department of Agriculture was decided on June 10, 2013 unanimously (9–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 569 U.S. 513 · 133 S. Ct. 2053 · 186 L. Ed. 2d 69 · 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4357
- Docket number
- 12-123
- Decided
- June 10, 2013
- Argued
- March 20, 2013
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Clarence Thomas
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 (bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority |
Full case caption
Marvin D. Horne, et Al., Petitioners v. Department of Agriculture
SCDB identifiers: case 2012-053, docket 2012-053-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
- Fane Lozman v. the City of Riviera Beach
- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
- Horne v. Department of AgricultureLaw held unconstitutional
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
- Nelson v. ColoradoLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 (bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
- Fane Lozman v. the City of Riviera Beach
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
- United States v. WindsorLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error