June 23, 2021
This The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday A California regulation that allows union organizers to enter the property of agricultural enterprises to discuss support for unions with employees is unconstitutional. The court voted 6 to 3 and agreed that the two companies questioned that the rule violated the provisions of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without compensation. The ruling is a major victory for property rights advocates and a setback for the union.
The ruling is in a litigation Northern California strawberry grower Cedar Point Nursery and Fresno-based grape and citrus fruit transporter Fowler Packing Co. filed suits in federal court. The two companies challenged a nearly half-century-old state law that allowed union organizers to enter agricultural business premises for up to three hours a day for 30 days, for a total of 120 days a year. Cedar Point and Fowler argued that by allowing union organizers to obtain their property, the provision created a kind of “easternity”—the legal right to use property—without their consent and compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment. After the lower court rejected this argument, these companies went to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in their case in March.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an article written for most people that when “the government actually acquires private property for public use”, the expropriation clause of the Fifth Amendment “provides clear and explicit obligations. , To provide fair compensation for the owner.” Roberts infers that the access regulations fall entirely into this category: it creates the right to invade the planter’s property, and therefore is the actual occupation of the property. By granting union organizers “the right to physically enter and occupy the growers’ land for 120 days a year, 3 hours a day,” Roberts continued, The most important right of property.
Roberts added that the access rights granted to union organizers are not permanent or constant, and it does not matter. The regulation still qualifies as an acquisition. Roberts observes that the statute does not create a real “easement” under state law, which is also irrelevant. If there were no regulations, employers could have excluded organizers from their property. Roberts also rejected the “baseless” suggestion made by the state and judge Stephen Breyer in his objection that the court’s ruling would endanger the health and safety inspections of food packaging plants. Roberts pointed out that, among other things, the government may require such inspections as a condition for obtaining permits and licenses??.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor (Sonia Sotomayor) and Elena Kagan (Elena Kagan) joined Breyer’s objection. In Breyer’s view, the question before the court is, ” temporarily Restrict the owner’s right to exclude others from the property automatically Equivalent”. Breyer believes that the answer is no.
This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.