Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

2021-06-23
Share:

Headline: California rule letting union organizers enter farm property is declared a per se taking, allowing growers to challenge forced access and seek compensation or injunction against government‑authorized organizer entry.

Holding: The Court held that California’s regulation granting union organizers up to three hours per day, 120 days per year to enter private agricultural property appropriates the owners’ right to exclude and thus is a per se physical taking.

Real World Impact:
  • Allows growers to sue or seek compensation when government rules force organizer entry
  • Reverses Ninth Circuit and sends the case back for further proceedings
  • Court preserves many inspections and permit conditions from automatic takings claims
Topics: union organizing, property rights, takings law, agriculture, labor access

Summary

Background

Two California growers, Cedar Point Nursery (a strawberry grower) and Fowler Packing Company (table grapes and citrus), challenged a state labor‑board rule that lets union organizers enter farm property to speak with workers. The regulation permits organizers on site up to three hours per day and up to 120 days a year. Organizers once entered Cedar Point with bullhorns and disturbed work; Fowler blocked organizers in a separate episode. The growers sued the Agricultural Labor Relations Board seeking to stop enforcement, arguing the rule appropriated an easement and required compensation. Lower courts denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, so the growers appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court framed the issue as whether the rule takes private property without paying for it. It held that the rule appropriates the owners’ fundamental right to exclude by granting a government‑authorized right to enter and therefore is a per se physical taking. The majority relied on earlier decisions that treated government‑authorized physical invasions as takings (for example, cases about cable installations, overflights, and easements) and rejected the idea that limited, intermittent access avoids compensation. The Court also explained that duration affects only the amount of compensation, not whether a taking occurred, and distinguished earlier cases that involved property open to the public.

Real world impact

The ruling allows growers to pursue takings claims when governments require third‑party access, reverses the Ninth Circuit, and returns the case for further proceedings. The opinion also stressed limits: ordinary inspections, background common‑law privileges, and permit conditions tied to benefits generally will not automatically be takings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh concurred, stressing existing labor‑law precedent. Justice Breyer dissented (joined by two colleagues), arguing the limited, temporary access should be evaluated under a flexible Penn Central balancing test rather than treated as a per se taking.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases