can argument this morning in case fourteen to seventy five one versus department of agriculture mr mcconnell mr chief justice and may it please the court thank you for being willing to hear this little case a second time it does involve some important principles and the livelihoods of marvin and ma horn and more indirectly hundreds of small california raising growers will be profoundly affected this is in the ministry of and for smith proceeding  brought by the department of agriculture against my clients commanding the relinquishment of funds connected to specific pieces of property namely reserve time the drazen means my clients appear in their capacity as horns actually assumed the for financial responsibility for the raisins out that were not turned over to the apartment of agriculture the producers in this case were fully paid for their  raisins this is a factual finding to be found in the judicial officers opinion at sixty six a of the appendix to the to the petition that warnings paid to producers for their raisins according to the traditional officer those raisins you go in with a pool on it and justice ginsberg that is true in the ordinary course that was not true in this particular case because of the unusual business reserve who you find are we believe that a volume limitation would be a use restriction that might possibly be challengable under the pen central task but it is would not be a per se taking in this case because the audience in your ordinary case the reserve percentage which in one case was thirty seven percent on and in there was thirty percent in the other case forty seven percent  i take it well i would get nothing nothing at all at least with this reserve pool there's the possibility of getting some money what it all depends the way volume controls generally work is that the owner of the produce is permitted they have to hold back a certain amount in the reserve and then they're permitted to sell all of that reserve as the market conditions continue in this case of course the r a c a so the raisins in some cases even above are the field price otherwise a market for the rays and so i would assume that volume controls under these economic conditions might have laughed they are these particular people are better which are owned by the state they're wild animals they're the property of the state and the oysterman had no property interest in them other then what the state chose to license them to harvest rush is that really  is why wouldn't the same be true as to raisins because raisins are not wild animals even if they're dancing and they did not originally belong to the federal government so you think that  tax they did also call it a tax and i'm perfectly happy to address whether this is a tax are because under the scores of standards for criteria for determining a tax assert only is not one  referring to the criteria in the n f i b case this is not in the internal revenue code it's not collected by the internal revenue service it's not often at the top there is no tax authorized by op i congress the proceeds of the tax do not with the maryland are citations indicating that they always stress belong to the state of maryland and i thought that the what the constitution required for it taking was just compensation  not a reasonable nexus to a a good policy i mean i'm wrong about you're not wrong about that so on that i suppose that question had underlying the government's briefs and why we can ask them what his position is or you can characterize their positions if you choose the thing since we could do this other ways what difference does it make you didn't understand that to be there  underlying premise and their argument or is that unfair on my part well they certainly say that from time to time in this court two years ago when koontz rejected arguments of that all of that sort but in fact  there is a fundamental difference between a volume control which is present for a number of our agricultural products first is the taking because in this case the government literally takes possession of the particular problem there's no there is no separate volume control in the sense that there's no regulation that tells you to producers or handlers how to use or sell raisins instead they're told to set aside their raisins and give them to the government so here there is a taking at the part that if it went to the government suppose we just couldn't you have asked to excise that part of it and still be the limit on the amount they could equivalent and we say that's not constitutional we're still resident they would be any obligation on your part to propose an alternative to the take the government comes and takes your property can't you just resist the taking without saying on from there so i mean maybe the answer is all just don't decide that but like i assume with you for the moment for argument's sake have some raisins in my basement i mean this program the government comes with a shovel and some burlap sacks it takes the right isn't so i would say well sounds like a taking to me at the next point to the constitution doesn't forbid taking it since what you have to do is paid just compensation now it's at that point i want to know what happened because i guess the government could argue look at this program it's a big program this program what it does is it gives raising farmers at the public's expense more money so if in fact you don't want us to take your raisins alright fine but we'd be more program if everybody said that so we have a rule against free riders now we'll give you what it cost you to take your raisins what it cost you is in fact the difference between what you receive given the program and what you would receive without the program that difference works in your favor it gives you money it doesn't take money so it was no compensation to in fact if we were to have compensation you should pay us the government so how are you going to get by that part and if you can't get by that part how are you going to avoid paying the fine so i don't see the relation between the taking argument which is maybe all we have to decide and how eventually right to get some money or you don't have to pay the fine if you have a minute i'd appreciate doesn't explanation i would love to be on the there's both a conceptual tonne higher with the volume controls than it would have been an unregulated market the fuel price that year was eight hundred ten dollars per ton taking away from thirty percent of their raisins  dollars of that eight hundred ten is attributable to the volume controls in the program only sixty three dollars cept i were we told the demand for raisins is in of your years better be i guess a record number concept the point is that this is a per se taking and it's if if there were benefits such as i don't believe that there were if there weren't that would at most go to whether there was implicit em's in kind of compensation for the taking which would go to the to the question of compensation implicit in time and kind compensation is a complicated ma has to do with whether there were special benefits that there's a split over this all over the country on that i don't think we want to get into whether this would be a special benefit he said well we just say as you did you have any objection to my writing if i were to write it like this taking it to take it ok but the constitution forbids takings without compensation the object of the program is at least in general to give farmers more compensation than they would have without it badly sometimes are counterproductive but if this is working well that's what happens so we send it back to the court to see did the program work well did it work to actually make your your client better off what rules do we follow that's how we should do this in europe and  think not now but close to there if this were an eminent domain proceeding the lower court would determine whether there was implicit in kind contribution if it were and first compensate under those regulations we know exactly what takes place and implicit in kind contribution is not provided for in those regulations what is provided in those regulations is that the if reserve the raisins not handed over to the or ac they handler must pay now to ply the number of raisins by the field price and that is it now that is also the measure of the value of the raisins are so that if they take that the compensation is exactly that and the two things simply are awash because the regulation and i think the broader principle here is that this is actually not a program which is designed to provide compensation the government almost concedes this is not this is not like getting land for a post office where the government intends to pay this is more like a program like like a kaiser at knob or some of the others where if it is a taking the government has no intention of paying a compensation that's not the kind of program that is in any cases just meant just in cases where there's a pro there's a 've just been trying to i think about whether your argument would apply to other kinds of programs and how it might apply to other kinds of programs so how about just programs where the government says give us produce records for us i'm sure that there are a lot of programs like that in the world and there is something intuitive about you were saying rather government is asking us to turn over stuff and i'm wondering it seems to me that the government asks people to turn over stuff all the time in the form of records how would that fare under your argument oh if the if the records of what the government is asking for is information that raisins are physical objects and the government wants some records of the government does not take prominent possession of records of i'm say in an i r s audit and they ask me to show our records to establish my tax deductions i show them the records they see the information it is not a taking you know but so you're saying that the government couldn't ask you to deliver records to them i did not say that they can ask me to do that and it keeping the records for ever i am i'm not sure but i doubt very much that that would be a taking again and just go into the value of the value of the records is the information which is what i assume it is on a regulatory program we're not talking about actual physical well there are cases on custodial legacies of the government all the time in criminal cases takes control of valuable objects for evidence and sometimes it keeps it forever and ever and in those cases i think there's a taking if it's too long i think we said that or i think other courts are sitting on no it was the government can i think it only so long as it's recently necessary for the case you're have a valuable diamond ring which is evidence and the government keeps it but it keeps it only for so long a flight i think that there are complicated sets of rules having to do contraband and have time to do a property that is used as an instrument how any of a crime and so forth but this is extremely far afield from raisins which interests and information all the time and if the government says you have to give us that information which counts as property why is that not subject to your role information can be property when it's intellectual property for turning over of trade secrets which is property you just admitted for the privilege of selling come other commodities pesticides of the court held that monsanto could not stand for the proposition that it is an affirmative benefit to someone simply to allow them to use their property and in ordinary sense there has to be an actual affirmative government grant of a benefit for the condition getting sixty three workers getting sixty three dollars more pounds for what you sell seems like a significant and they're not given the sixty three dollars results from volume controls are that does not require a taking the taking itself is of absolutely no value to the producers or anyone else other than those those who receive the export subsidies from the sale of the raisins they're the only ones who benefit from from the actual could if you couldn't do it you would have a product that would eat hell you less except for that what you could he did home but you didn't intend to eat it at home because you gave it up for sale is that there's an initial research and then as market conditions develop and more information is available all of the bar owners of the product are permitted to release more and more into the market  and in these particular market there was the other way well that would be a different that would certainly be a different case and then if it went completely the other way it could well be that the on of that the owners of the raisins receive no money at all on it but that still it's still a restriction on their use the raisins haven't been taken from them in this case the raisins are actually taken from them and the government sells them in fact  in one of these years the government was able to sell the raisins from more than the field or rice a skillet i really q on this i've helped a lot in my thinking but there's still what we do about this fine and the reason that i'm beer mr chief justice and may it please the court petitioner's isolate just one feature of a comprehensive program regulating commercial marketing with a fungible agricultural product a regulatory program that was  with producer approval and it's established for their benefit it is a cooperative program among the secretary producers and handlers the raisins are not put into the program for the benefit of the government they are put in to the to you could have a lot of features there's no objection to having many features but where one of them is a taking if you have to justify it by just compensation the question is whether it is a taking and we believe it is we believe that it's not safe to say it's not a taking if it involves just personal property only real estate are you still that the government has abandoned that i don't that has not been our position we have we have we have not argued that personal property is not subject to the just compensation cla only when the producer the grower has voluntarily submitted committed the rosen's to the stream of commerce they've been put in they have been put into the stream of commerce they are turned over to the handler the market in whatever regulates only the conduct of handlers the sell cell phones however every fourth one you have to give to us or a manufacturer of cars you can sell cars in the united states but every third car you have to give to in the united states i think that would present a very different question why would it be why would it be difficult because this is this is part of a comprehensive regulatory program that if it isn't just acquiring that can flush out how do you say if the government took all of dreams cars then it'd be ok no but just not a  no no we're not saying not at all and if i could if i could just well but just before you do i mean the rationale i mean the government can come up with a rationale to justify those examples really easily you say cell phone providers benefit greatly if there's a broader cellphone market if more people are using them so we're going to take every fifth one to give it to people who might otherwise not be able to afford a cell phone and that will help cell phone manufacturers because more and more people will have them more and more people will want them therefore it's ok that's the same rationale you're applying here this is for the good of the people whose property were taken well it the these programs go back to the one nine hundred thirty s when the agricultural industry in this country was in serious trouble and particularly in california prices were below cost of production and you can do what you have done in most other marketing orders which is not take their reasons instead say look you can only plant you know sixty three percent of your acreage this year or you can only produce you know twenty eight tons that's how most of them work in most of them their buyer which i presume analyzed under penn central this is different this is different because you come up with the truck and you get the shovels and you take the raisins probably in the dark of night you know that  but that is not what the government does but the way the way operates it is that the producer submit the raisins to the handler of the handler then divides them into two categories the handler is required by raisins they say the government has legal title so that it may we will soon for purposes of this case so that that they the government can and or that the committee it's not the secretary of agriculture the committee can then sell the raisins the proceeds of those sales are polluted and distributed back to the producers and how many how much from the sales did these petitioners acquire in the two years at issue here well and in the much how much money was given back to th and one year was two hundred seventy two dollars per ton and whether you have there was there were no proceeds back because big because the cost of administering the reserve program exceeded there was no net proceeds afterwards so with i do not know that how many murders but a great number of years and in fact the the three was leading up to this particular time well one of the years here was forty seven million dollars was what's the basis not to see big because this is so comprehensive governmental program and it it it governs quality of governance timing of sales and that's important to recognize that's all that is going on here the reserve rosen's are set aside by the handler right after the producer has voluntarily turned them over there set aside by the handler for later sell petitioners concede in their brief a page twenty three that the government can regulate the well and the manner and the channel of sales that's exactly what the reserve program dilutes they're turned over to the handler the handler sets them aside and reserve mr internet and then decides when and where to sell them this this is  a historical quirk that you have to defend you could achieve your government's objectives just as you do in most other cases through volume limitations that don't require a physical taking for whatever reason in the history of the new deal this one was set up differently and so we're here dealing with a classical physical taking we're not going to jeopardize the marketing departments marketing order regime and by the way the better be the department of agriculture that takes the as you said earlier it's the raising committee or else you're going to have a lot of trouble in your government speech cases where you always make the point that these committees are in fact government we're not we're not saying the committee is not the government what i was saying is that the that the operation of the program is not for the government's benefit it is for the producers recorrect what is this hypothesis this is i'm having trouble with the same thing i agree so far with what the chief justice said go back to the new deal you can in fact burn raisins the point of which was to have fewer raisins the result of which was to raise the price of raisins from one hundred dollars a pound or a bushel to four hundred that was thought to make the farmer better off which it did and it made the customers warsaw then someone had a good idea and said sort of wasteful to burn raisins let's take the raisins we'd otherwise burning give them to schoolchildren and maybe we could even sell a few and if we do we'll get that extra money to the farmer too now we have school children with raisins we have the farmer having more money sounds like a pretty good program of course you have taken some raisins but what i don't see how i got the farmer or the schoolchildren are any the worse off and if there are no worse off what compensation are these farmers entitle to of course free riders could become yet better off they could charge at the higher price that the program creates eight hundred dollars but after all that isn't the issue because you have to have as a rule no free riders and once you admit that as a rule everyone including perhaps these plaintiffs are better off than not at all that's a very simple argument it's what i understand to be the economics of the brennan plan the f d r the nine hundred forty nine  yet we've had endless cases complexities opinions and finds a and c are for i'm probably wrong with my simple simple argument of course i doubt that i'm wrong but nonetheless i want you to explain what's wrong with it we agree with much of what you said except that it does not i just reiterate it is not the taking of the rays you want to say it's not a take it was notice a regular it is a regulatory program classically analyzed under pen central because there is a the advantage one of the phrases this chord is frequently used among producers this does not distinctly affect the petitioners it applies to all producers of petitioners are correct since one thousand nine hundred forty nine every year there has been a reserve requirement every producer has had a pro say taking is that mr nader if i dodge the agree with what the chief justice said i mean just the way i think about this program is that this does seem a weird historical anomaly and am i right that the rest of these agricultural programs are done differently such that saying that this was a take in what nine act their agricultural programs and are there any other programs out there forget agricultural programs but are there any other programs out there that we should be concerned about if we were to think about this as a taken well i think with respect i recalled for programs i think there are eight or ten other programs that have reserve provisions in them i think most of those who are not active in the sense that there is currently would sort of just like this one it's not and if this one has outlived its usefulness and the committee has not proposed a reserve requirement the program is working exactly like it should the committee which is responsible has decided not to impose a reserve requirement i'm sorry to get said that there were eight or ten utilized i think i think most of this is been in the last decade i don't know i don't know precisely but one of the things that's happened in this industry in the last ten years is it is changed greatly you will see from the break amicus brief filed by sun maid and  the reason bargaining association which i commend to your attention they now believe that the reserve requirement should no longer be early sunday does should no longer be instituted but they also firmly believe the petitioners should not be permitted to be free that i think the most immediately relevant one which this court sustained was in in the monsanto case we were asking about records in information that was a case in which as a condition for marketing pesticides the manufacturer had to submit a you know what that that one anything else out there i mean tell me what the the realm of regulatory programs is that we ought to be concerned about if we were to say something like the production of some thing at the widespread in our society and what the court basically said there was that if it was known when someone before they entered commerce and and applied their application if they knew that the material would be disclosed to the public or used by the government for approving other applications there was no take i guess the government can prohibit the the introduction of harmful pesticides into interstate commerce i'm not sure it can prohibit the introduction of reasons i mean it's you know dangerous racists i can understand imposing that condition on monsanto and that would not be an unconstitutional condition but that is such to me it is when you impose it on race day the courts rationale in monsanto was not based on the fact that it was that it was that the product was dangerous although that was obviously the setting it was the fact that the that the manufacturer knew when submitting the information to the e p a that it would be subject to  disclosure and therefore its property value either eliminated or appropriated by the government as it work for use in evaluating other applications from monsanto and looking to brief on page thirty two when you cite monsanto you say that producers who are dissatisfied with the reserve bank elations may plant different crops it's a pretty audacious state if you don't like our regulations do something else well that's not the only option that they had they had the option of selling the grapes for and that's that's one of the things that i grow would take into account as well they've got a problem with race and what i'm saying if you don't like regulations you can challenge them in court to see if they comply with the constitution the answer i mean if the answer is always you can do something else it would seem we should we'll never have these kinds of cases now but but this is a subset of point i'm making not a preclusion or if you point out the substantive point is that there is market regulation people who are growing crops in this industry know what the regulation i can work out that's what i get no our argument our fundamental argument is that it is not a taking begin with because the the grower voluntarily submit the total amount of its raisins to the handler the handler then separates them and into two quarters one to be sold now and one to be sold litter but they both have to do with the timing and regulation of sale which petitioners acknowledge the government can regulate the timing and manner of sales that's exactly what happens here there are basically two markets one is the free market the other is the tightly regulated market for exports for other outlets that do not compete with the domestic market only if you don't like we're going to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools you're going to make everybody stand and if you don't like it go to a different school i don't understand why that's not the same analysis here we maybe take you know this may be a taking of your raisins or not but if you don't like it grow something else monsanto is not the only case where that was by the way i do not believe that no one cut back on on the rationale of monsanto but the footnote in the no one said is we do not regard the ability to build on your property your real property to build a house as it as a governmental benefit it did not say in fact i think it reaffirmed the idea that there was an exchange in monsanto where the government was giving a benefit of clearing the product for use whereas you say that introducing raisins into interstate  reasons in an interstate commerce and you say that is something that the benign government can give or withhold it is a permission to do it which is exactly what the court said in monsanto but monsanto is not the only case ye said the same thing with respect to the two real property that was the case involving the mobile home park and it was claimed there was a token there because the mobile park owner was subject to rent control and and it was argue that that was just like loreto because it was a first physical occupation and the court said no the critical distinction was that the use the use had pollen terribly chosen to enter the right on market to enter into a commercial transaction and the government could then because they had voluntarily done it regulate the price that was being charged mr mcconnell was asked a number of questions about the leonard case but i take it that you don't think that the leonard case has a very important bearing on this case because you cited one time in your brief it's a passing reference on the issue of fungible goodsome i correct there we think it's a critical point we're not we're not like you don't think you  didn't propose you didn't suggest to us that this case is just another version of leonard and therefore we should farm based on leonard wood to the extent run it was about fox with this was not this program was not identified as tax partly because the raisins don't come to the government the reasons or go into a pool the full arms to all of the producers and then it's divided up among the producers this is not these are not things that are appropriated for the government's own use but we think leonard is is critically instructive for the point that with respect to property like this like the oyster shells or like raisins there are what the court said is that they are fungible they are only value is for commercial sale this is not like the into a handler put all of the regulatory aspects of the program aside for a moment and just say this were a much simpler program and it said the government says to the reason industry you know we could tax you  say you have to deliver two percent of your net profits we're not going to do that we're just going to take two percent of your reasons would that be constitutional would that be a taken that would that would be i think like when it would be it the raisins excuse me are not being raised for the government's program they did not go to school lunch programs of the government once raisins it buys them it doesn't it doesn't where we don't usually allow committees of producers who are called the government to impose taxes to what i was saying is that the there are others the government may well be able to compose something some exaction as a tax but this is a regulatory program adopted by producers again it's important to recognize and this goes back to the new deal this court has had numerous cases involving these marketing orders right ever a majority of producers agreed to i have to be bound by i mean these people disagree they did they disagree but the disagreement is not converted into a taking and if the if they believe the program is not operating  then they are there are other i'm missing the disagreement converted into thinking i'm just saying that it doesn't it doesn't carry much water to say that this is a program adopted by by producers if fifty one percent of the producers want to do it because forty nine they don't want to do it well but i think it's a pretty pretty good indication that that the promises on which conason acted the statute in one nine hundred thirty seven operated then and operated operate now for the benefit of producers and it should necessary in any one particular year in which the regulatory program is and place to calibrate whether the benefits outweigh the burdens of what i think central planning was thought to work very well in one nine hundred thirty seven and russia tried it for a long time well if again if this program is is not working it can be modified and in fact the committee comprised of producer systems cited not to impose a reserve but what i mean here you've made the point several times that the government sells these raisins for the benefit of the producers right and one of the producers some of them think they can do a better job of selling them they can get a better price because they're better producers they're better marketers they have export contacts that others don't and that th is is just standard regulation that what congress has said is you if you're going to sell you have to sell in the manner set up under this program and that the pollution that's not usually when you're talking about that type of regulation i understand that you know the  reasons have to be so big that you can't call them raisins and they've got em safety inspections and all but you've been presenting this is the reason this is a good program is because we sell the raisins and then we give some of what's left to them to the producers i don't think that's a very common approach to market established and sun made and the racing association believe it was still true during these years that if you if you have a big surplus as there was around the turn of the century it would make the prices plummet if those extra raisins were put on the on the open market because the demand for raisins is an elastic so what caught what this what marketing more does is it as intimate what operates estimates what the free tonnage requirement would be and that is completely open to the market the reserve rates and if you there essentially valueless because you don't need them to satisfy the existing market you take them off the market to prop up the prices of the of the free and then the committee will sell them when they will not undermine or in a manner that will not undermine the franks and most assassin of program were carried out with respect to real property would you would you provide the same answer suppose that property owners owners of real property in a particular area think that the value of their property would be increased if they all surrendered a certain amount of that property to the government for the purpose of producing a pub creating a park or for some other reason and so different why would it be found i thought you said you're not arguing that there's a difference between real property and personal property we're not saying it's a categorical difference but i think i think the lucas decision is very instructive there that when when the court was talking about the ability to regulate real property it said that there is a big ten i wanted to correct one thing but you can explain to me want why why the market for reasons is in the last sticky mean people won't buy more raisins if they're cheaper that's basically correct it's just it's just a quality of it's just a quality of raisins and there you put a great surplus on the domestic market the prices for prices will crater and so this has a very sensible approach and that is you need or you don't have to convince us that this is a sensible program for you to prevail no  research i think it's i think it's true of maybe several others i'm not sure i'm not sure some of them have to do with the handler the difference between handler and producer i want to correct i'm not just a go ahead when the crux of a factual error on the constitution so there was suggestion in the one year there was eight hundred ten dollars was the fuel price and because of the mathematical calculations the claim was that petitions would have been better off without the reserve that's not correct the mistake there is the assumption that all the raisins would have been sold at the fuel price if they were all put on the market and that's that that's just inconsistent with the premise of the order that the only reason that there is a high flown place for the free tonnage wilson's is that the other ones are taken off the market so that would not have they would not have been recovered in that way how many how many of these programs are there of marketing orders i think there are scores of which i mean i'm trying to put the eight to ten in relation to two to how many i don't know the total number but i we can follow that up with a supplemental letter i think i think there are scores of them but this is not fundamentally different from the others and again the government is not acquiring these wilsons for itself the government doesn't actually keep them in its possession it just tells the handler to keep them and sell them later rather than selling them now and that is not an appropriation of private property thank you counsel mr mcconnell you have five minutes remaining  chief justice are so several things have been cleared up by the government now does concede that the government takes legal title to the raisins are the government does  market it sells for the best price and then it uses the proceeds for its own regulatory purview have only four minutes and rebel you have some other point on it it just adds to the factual point it is not our calculations are not based upon  selling all of the raisins at the field price our calculations are based upon being able to sell the raisins at the price that the secretary has said would be to price in an unregulated market which is seven hundred forty seven dollars ton and that is it is certainly not true that these reserve raisins are valueless are they at an extremely valuable commodity and most of the years are the producers of the raisins receive absolutely nothing for them the important point here is that is that it is not any once of the taking even if there is a benefit i have no doubt for example that in loreto odd that the value of the apartment went up because there was a cable because it became cable ready for its for its time its that did not make it any less of a taking on it as this is a per se taking and any benefits only go to whether there might be some kind of  implicit in kind of compensation as a result of the benefit and if this were an imminent domain proceeding i think that that might well be relevant this is in fact only an administrative enforcement action in which the question is whether the department of agriculture was entitled under the constitution to demand either the raisins or their monetary equivalent without any payment of of of compensation that lasts what why isn't it and for them to make that argument because of the argument you know that you're better off it if you would look at the way you did i mean what's what's well you know it's the regulation i'm  sorry if you look at seven c f for our nine eighty nine point one sixty six c you will see that that is the provision for what happens when the handler does not turn over reserve raisins to the department of agriculture it is it as very specific provisions for what happens and there is no provision in that for implicit in kind contra compensation but just in the argue that you the fact that all the reason producers are better off because of this program including you but no free riders that's what's the compensation can they at least argue that if they concede that under this regulation i do not think it is open to the department of agriculture to argue that i think that that would be a logical argument if this were an eminent domain proceeding and we were simply trying to figure out what the proper value of the raisins is and reserving of course the point that we believe that this program does not benefit all the producer yet we believe that we believe that this program actually makes the producers demonstrably worse off the only people who benefit from this program are the recipients of the that the very first thing that you said in this argument because you said typically the handmaid doesn't take the product and the handler doesn't pay for the product and you would think that the points here would only have a tak claim assuming that they do have a takings claim for the reasons that they produced and not for the reasons that other people produced but you said that that's not correct in this case it is not because they pay  out from the raise and marketing association to the producers for every race and not just the free tonnage raisins but for the reserve tonnage raisins as well so the hornets are actually the only people with a