Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court held 6-3 that a California regulation requiring agricultural employers to permit labor organizers onto their property constituted a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, requiring just compensation regardless of the economic impact.
The Facts
Facts
California's Agricultural Labor Relations Act required employers to permit union organizers access to their property for limited periods. Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing challenged the access regulation as an unconstitutional taking without compensation. Lower courts rejected the challenge.
The Issue
Issue
Whether a regulation that grants third parties a recurring right of access to private property constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring just compensation.
The Rules
Rule
Government-mandated physical invasions of private property -- even temporary or intermittent ones -- are per se takings under the Fifth Amendment and require just compensation without further economic balancing.
The Application
Analysis
The regulation created an unmistakable physical occupation by granting third parties, union organizers, a legal right to enter and use Cedar Point's property for prescribed periods, not merely a restriction on how the owners could use their own land. Under the per se taking rule, this government-mandated physical invasion of private property constitutes a taking regardless of its temporary or intermittent nature or minimal economic burden. The Court applied the rule categorically: once a regulation authorizes a persistent physical intrusion by others onto private property, the analysis ends and compensation is owed. No balancing of public benefits against private harm. This straightforward application distinguished the access mandate from typical zoning or land-use regulations that restrict owner conduct without creating an enforceable right of occupancy for outsiders.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Court ruled 6-3 for Cedar Point. Roberts wrote the majority; Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented, warning the ruling threatens a wide range of regulatory access requirements.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support