Supreme Court Previews
The previews are contributed by the Legal Information Institute, a nonprofit activity of Cornell Law School. The previews include an in-depth look at several cases plus executive summaries of other cases before the Supreme Court. The executive summaries include a link to the full text of the preview.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (No. 20-107) Oral argument: Mar. 22, 2021 Court below: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Question as Framed for the Court by the Parties Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Facts In 1975, California passed the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA or Act), which established the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board). The ALRB found that there were few opportunities for unions to communicate with agricultural workers. In response, the Board promulgated an access regulation which allowed union organizers to approach agricultural workers under limited circumstances while the workers were physically present on their employer’s property. Under the regulation, labor organizers can visit the employer’s property after providing the employer and a regional office with notice. Union organizers can visit an employer’s property for four thirty-day periods a year and only for three one-hour periods. Two separate incidents led the two petitioners, Cedar Point Nursery (Cedar Point) and Fowler Packing Company (Fowler), to bring this action against the respondent, Victoria Hassid (Hassid) in her capacity as chair of the ALRB. Cedar Point raises strawberry plants that are sold to strawberry producers. Cedar Point has 400 seasonal workers and 100 full-time workers: the seasonal workers are housed at hotels, and none live onsite. On October
29, 2015, without providing the required notice, union organizers from the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) allegedly entered Cedar Point’s property early in the morning. Thereinafter, Cedar Point accused UFW’s organizers of using bullhorns to “disrupt[] work,” and “distract[] and intimidat[e] workers.” Cedar Point brought charges against UFW for violating the access regulation, and in turn, UFW brought charges against Cedar Point for unfair labor practices. Cedar Point states that it would like to exclude UFW organizers from its property in the future but is unable to under the access regulation. The other petitioner, Fowler, is a “largescale shipper of table grapes and citrus” employing roughly 2,500 workers. Fowler’s employees do not live on the property. UFW’s organizers were allegedly unable to access Fowler’s property during three days in July 2015, and UFW brought an unfair labor practice charge against Fowler with the Board. While UFW withdrew the charges, Fowler also argues that it would prefer to exclude “union trespassers” from its property but cannot because of the access regulation. Together, Cedar Point and Fowler (Growers) sued the Board for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking an injunction to prevent the Board from enforcing the access regulation against them. They argued that by enforcing the access regulation against them, the Board is taking their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that the Board also violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unlawful seizure. The Board dismissed their suit and Growers appealed to the district court, which also dismissed both claims. On Growers' appeal to the Ninth Cir-
66 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • July/August 2021
cuit, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal. First, the court found that Growers did not make out a claim that there was a per se physical taking of Growers' property when the access regulation was applied to Growers. Second, the court determined that Growers also did not make out a claim showing that the access regulation affected a Fourth Amendment seizure of Growers’ property. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Growers’ Fifth Amendment claim on November 13, 2020.
Legal Analysis DOES THE ACCESS REGULATION CONSTITUTE A PHYSICAL TAKING? Growers argue that the access regulation, which gives a right of access to union organizers to meet with agricultural employees on the employer’s land during limited times and for specific reasons, qualifies as a physical taking and therefore is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Growers argue that the access regulation qualifies as an easement. There are two types of takings under the Fifth Amendment, physical and regulatory takings; the two types undergo different legal analysis. Growers argue that the easement here qualifies as a physical taking, rather than a regulatory taking. The rule that governs physical takings comes from Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which establishes that the government has a “categorical duty to compensate” property owners when it has physically taken possession of their property interest. Regulatory takings, however, are not subject to this “categorical duty to compensate.” Growers further elaborate that the access regulation qualifies as a physical taking for several reasons. First, Growers note that an easement in gross is recognized as a property interest in California, and the access regulation clearly qualifies as an easement. Growers also note that the Court has held that permanent physical intrusions onto property are a per se taking. Growers use Kaiser Aetna v. United States to show that the Court has required just compensation even
