The California Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, which grants labor organizations an uncompensated "right to take access" to an agricultural employer’s property in order to solicit support for unionization, effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment.[1] Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.
Background
In 1975, California's legislature passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act to help unions gain access to agriculture workers in the state, which at that time tended to be migratory with the seasons and difficult to contact otherwise. The Act allowed union members, with prior notice to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board but without consent of the property owner, to come onto agricultural properties up to three times a day, one hour at a time, up to 120 days during a year, to perform unionization activities.[2]
The dispute arose out of a 2015 effort by agricultural union organizers to persuade workers at a Dorris, California strawberry nursery and at a Central Valley fruit packing operation to join a collective bargaining organization. The visit to the northern California farm was conducted under the 1975 Act. The nursery owner sued for a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring future visits by labor organizers, arguing that the regulation results in a physical taking of property and an unreasonable seizure under the U.S. Constitution.
The United States filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners on January 7, 2021, 13 days before the end of the Trump administration. On February 12, 2021, acting solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar notified the Supreme Court that the Biden administration had changed the government's position and urged affirmance of the lower court decision.[5]
The basic issue before the justices was whether the union organizer visits to the petitioners' facilities is a physical taking of property and therefore automatically subject to an injunction or mandatory compensation under the 1982 case of Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. or, instead, whether the petitioners' claim should be evaluated under the various factors outlined in the 1978 case of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.[6]
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 22, 2021. Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Co. were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The Court issued its decision on June 23, 2021. In a 6–3 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision and remanded the case back for further review. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion. Roberts wrote "The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property" and that "access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking" without compensation.[2] Roberts stated that this would not affect functions like government inspectors as those are beneficial to both employees and the public.[2]
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer wrote that the access granted to union organizers was only temporary and not permanent and thus should not be considered a taking, since the agricultural worked are not "forever denied" use of the property, and thus the law was "not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain".[2] Breyer also expressed concern that the majority opinion may be used broadly by landowner to block access from inspectors such as those "to verify proper preservation of wetlands or the habitat enjoyed by an endangered species, or for that matter, the safety of inspected meat".[2]
