On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled out that the government cannot force raisin farmers to quit part of their annual crop less than their total worth. The ruling by 8-1 is considered to be a big win for conservative groups and also private property rights.

It is a 1940s-era program that emerged from the Great Depression. But the justices have termed it to be unconstitutional because it gives power to federal officials to take a hold of farmers' personal property without giving them fully compensating. But the end aim is to help farmers by stabilizing market prices.

The court took side of Californian famers Marvin and Laura Horne, who affirmed that the program is making to lose them money. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the government should pay 'just compensation' when it takes hold of personal goods like the way it takes away land.

Roberts rejected the government's arguments that Hornes voluntarily took part in the raisin market. They should have the option of growing different crops, if they do not like it. The case was considered as one of the most significant property disputes reaching court since 2005.

"The decision confirms what should be obvious: the government cannot come and take your personal property without compensation, whether raisins or other property, on the ground that the taking is for your own good", stated J. David Breemer, attorney for the Pacific Law Foundation, a conservative group that supported the Hornes.

The Hornes' lawyer, John O'Quinn has termed the ruling as an important win for personal liberty.