The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments Monday in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case about the union rights of farmworkers. It could impact the future of anti-discrimination law and much more.
The plaintiffs in the case are two California fruit producers who are suing over a 1975 state regulation that allows union organizers to have temporary access to an agricultural employers property during non-work hours. The laws rationale is to support workers right to unionize by allowing workers access to their workplace premises for after-hours meetings.
California law requires agricultural businesses to allow labor organizers onto their property three times a day for 120 days each year. The state contends that the regulation is necessary in the specific context of farming: farmworkers tend to be inaccessible to union organizers through other channels, and farm properties lack parking lots or public areas that other workers typically use for gathering. From Californias brief:
[Farmworkers] are highly migratory, moving to follow the harvest every few weeks or months; they often live in temporary housing, sometimes on their employers property; they frequently lack access to modern telecommunications technology; many speak only indigenous languages; and many are illiterate even in their native language. The Boards regulation authorizes a limited number of organizers to access the property of agricultural employers, for brief periods, during non-work hours, solely for the purpose of discussing organizing with employees, and only after notifying the Board and the employer.
Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company sued to have the law invalidated, and their argument is based on land use. They say that the law allowing union organizers to meet with workers on their property is an easement that amounts to a per se taking something that would require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
The after-hours union meetings dont disrupt the employers businesses, and the state of California isnt actually taking the property so to make a Fifth-Amendment argument, the plaintiffs needed to frame their loss as interference with a guarantee that is constitutionally protected. They chose the right to exclude unwanted persons. In other words, the California unionizing regulation deprives the owners of their inherent property right to kick people off their land.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit sided with California, as did the district court. The panel said that because the regulation didnot amount to a physical taking because it did notallow random members of the public to unpredictably traverse their property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.The panel also ruled that the statute wasnt a regulatory taking because the only property right affected was the right to exclude and thats simply not enough.
Now, SCOTUS will decide whether the Fifth Amendment protects a right to exclude on par with other inherent property rights. If the justices side with the landowners and agree that the regulation amounts to a taking, it would mean the regulation cannot continue to operate without California paying compensation for its taking of the land. Thats novel in itself, but theres far more drama to be had outside the arena of farming and unionizing.
The fruit-producer plaintiffs argue that the right to exclude should take its rightful place among the most sacred of protected interests: fundamental rights.
When a right is fundamental, any law abridging that right triggers the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, a state regulation that interferes with a fundamental right must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest in order to pass constitutional muster. In short, state regulations fail almost always fail this test, because the right being protected has been deemed basically untouchable. (Other fundamental rights include the right to marry, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.)
In an email to Law&Crime,Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Wen Fa, who represents the petitioner fruit sellers in the litigation, explained his clients position in the case:
The Constitution prohibits government from requiring you to allow unwanted strangers into your property. The California regulation here is unconstitutional because it forces property owners to allow unwanted union activists onto their property, and violates the property owners fundamental right to exclude trespassers.
However, Aaron Tang, a constitutional law professor and former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned in a Washington Post piece Thursday that as devastating as a ruling for the plaintiffs would be in the context of unions, its real danger lies outside far outside the context of employment law.
The disputethreatenshavoc just as great outside the union context. Considerstate lawsthat permit child protection inspectors to make unannounced home visits. Now suppose a homeowner suspected of abuse or neglect wants to keep the inspector out. Under the challengers logic, such individuals would have a Fifth Amendment right to do so unless the government paid the suspected abuser to access the property. The same problem would ensnarenursing home visitsandfood safety inspections.
Indeed, we have seen anti-discrimination ordinances challenged on the grounds that they interfere with First Amendment rights; a ruling that the right to exclude is fundamental would mean an entirely separate basis for bringing legal challenges, rooted in property law (a legal landscape far less politically-charged than religious freedom). The cases potential for broad impact is underscored by the more than 30 amicus briefs submitted to the Court by interested yet uninvolved parties.
As for the justices, their position in the case poses some intriguing questions. The Court decided a landmark union case in 2018; it ruled that an employee who is not a member of a union could not be forced to pay union fees for the collective bargaining done on his behalf. In that case, conservative justice Samuel Alitopenned a decision joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. JusticesSotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented.
A conservative majority might similarly side against the pro-union ordinance in the Cedar Point litigation. However, if decided on Fifth Amendment grounds, such a decision threatens to create just the kind of chaos the conservative justices usually endeavor to avoid.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 22, 2021.
[Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images]
Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]
- Trump Judge Casts Deciding Vote to Excuse Clear Violation by Police of Black Man's Fifth Amendment Rights: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People... - May 11th, 2021
- If the Devil of the WTO IP Waiver Is in the Details, What Are the Details? - JD Supra - May 11th, 2021
- Owens v. Brown: How The Navy's Women Won the Right to Serve at Sea - The Maritime Executive - May 11th, 2021
- Why Is the Justice Department Trying To Punish Derek Chauvin Twice? - Reason - May 11th, 2021
- Voice of the People | | hastingstribune.com - Hastings Tribune - May 11th, 2021
- Frontenacs to pick fifth overall in OHL Priority Selection - The Kingston Whig-Standard - May 11th, 2021
- Trial hits snag for convicted murderer charged in another deadly Youngstown shooting - WKBN.com - April 29th, 2021
- Convention of states blocked in Legislature | netnebraska.org - NET Nebraska - April 29th, 2021
- Derek Chauvin Trial: Updates The Spectator - The Spectator - April 29th, 2021
- Morries Hall and the right not to incriminate yourself (Fifth Amendment) - MSR News Online - April 11th, 2021
- Man who was with George Floyd during his arrest pleads the Fifth amid Chauvin trial - KARE11.com - April 11th, 2021
- Floyd's Friend Invokes 5th Amendment Before Testimony Resumes in Chauvin Trial - Voice Of Alexandria - April 11th, 2021
- Officers take the stand on training and protocol; Floyd's friend fears self-incrimination - WXOW.com - April 11th, 2021
- Today's Headlines and Commentary - Lawfare - Lawfare - April 11th, 2021
- What Is the Second Amendment? | Second Amendment Rights - Reader's Digest - April 11th, 2021
- Free Webinar: Battling Deep Fakes and Misinformation Media's Role and Responsibility - StreetInsider.com - April 11th, 2021
- Virginia Beach police bought the technology to automatically turn on body cameras when a gun is drawn, but it doesn't work - 13newsnow.com WVEC - March 31st, 2021
- Analysis | Hefazat-e Islam, the group behind anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh - The Hindu - March 31st, 2021
- Question of fear or vengeance at core of Lawton murder trial - The Lawton Constitution - March 31st, 2021
- Professor's New Casebook Is First to Look at Law of the Police - UVA Today - March 31st, 2021
- Arbitration. Enforcement of Award. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Personal Jurisdiction. District court refuses to enforce $20 million award... - March 31st, 2021
- SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - March 31st, 2021
- City issues order to force Columbus police officers to give evidence in protest probe - The Columbus Dispatch - March 31st, 2021
- Separation of judiciary still elusive in Bangladesh - newagebd.net - March 31st, 2021
- The Fight Over Minimum Wage Has a Long History in the US. Here's What to Know About It - NBC 6 South Florida - March 31st, 2021
- USCIS: Uvarov's request for injunctive relief moot; passport returned and he has departed NMI - Marianas Variety - March 31st, 2021
- Lawyer tries to throw out confession of Killeen woman charged in Vanessa Guillen case - The Killeen Daily Herald - March 31st, 2021
- Bill would protect juveniles' Fifth Amendment rights | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal - March 21st, 2021
- 5th Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes - March 7th, 2021
- What is the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment? - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) - March 7th, 2021
- Ghost of March 4 inauguration back to haunt us - Olean Times Herald - March 7th, 2021
- What you need to know as Chauvin trial starts Monday - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press - March 7th, 2021
- Mensah to 'plead the 5th' if forced to testify in new hearing on deadly shooting - WISN Milwaukee - February 27th, 2021
- CPAC heavy hitters to highlight constitutional freedoms, allege 'left hates the Bill of Rights' - Home - WSFX - February 27th, 2021
- Fact Checking Xavier Becerra's Claim That He 'Never Sued Any Nuns' - The Dispatch - February 27th, 2021
- The 5 Trump Amendments to the Constitution - The Atlantic - February 25th, 2021
- A refusal to testify shouldnt be interpreted this way - Leominster Champion - February 25th, 2021
- Blythe vote-buying case referred to Georgia Attorney General - The Augusta Chronicle - February 25th, 2021
- Ex-husband of 'RHONY' events planner pleads Fifth in Peeping Tom suit - Page Six - February 25th, 2021
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Kids Climate SuitHeaded to the Supreme Court? - Lexology - February 25th, 2021
- Justices Won't Hear Fight Over USPTO Fees On Axed Patents - Law360 - February 25th, 2021
- Florida woman charged over threats to FBI asking about Capitol siege - Insider - February 25th, 2021
- Disputes over church property and ACCA ambiguity - SCOTUSblog - February 25th, 2021
- Newsom Looks To Shear Barber's Suit Over COVID-19 Orders - Law360 - February 25th, 2021
- Supreme Court asked to declare the all-male military draft unconstitutional | TheHill - The Hill - February 25th, 2021
- ECC takes on 'Black and Blue: Policing Communities of Color' - WBFO - February 25th, 2021
- Letter: CDC vs. landlords. If director has that much power over private citizens, there's a problem. - The Augusta Chronicle - February 25th, 2021
- Trump is acquitted again, Sen. Ron Johnson sends the wrong message by siding with him - UW Badger Herald - February 25th, 2021
- Harvey Weinstein has been behind bars for a year: What's changed? - USA TODAY - February 25th, 2021
- Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration Expands the Ranks of Health Care Providers Authorized to Administer COVID-19 Vaccines - Lexology - February 8th, 2021
- Dems: The Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination doesn't apply to Trump - ChicagoNow - February 8th, 2021
- Americana Corner: The Bill of Rights: The Fifth Amendment - Bryan County News - February 8th, 2021
- Ex-Con in Fraud Case Takes the Fifth - Arkansas Business Online - February 8th, 2021
- HHS Expands Categories of Persons Covered Under the PREP Act Who Can Administer COVID-19 Vaccine - JD Supra - February 8th, 2021
- Book review: 'The Crooked Path to Abolition' - Bowling Green Daily News - February 8th, 2021
- Republicans seek to play offense in vote-a-rama | TheHill - The Hill - February 8th, 2021
- Letter: Claims of constitutional rights are often wrong - The Durango Herald - February 2nd, 2021
- EU Commission publishes fifth amendment to its Temporary Framework for state aid in relation to the COVID-19 crisis - Lexology - February 2nd, 2021
- Can a Comic Book Contain the Drama and Heat of Activism? - The New York Times - February 2nd, 2021
- Chief Nurse at Wolters Kluwer and Critical Care Nurse Practitioner Discusses HHS Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act - Business... - February 2nd, 2021
- Congressional Investigations in the 117th Congress: Choppy Waters Ahead for the Private Sector? - Gibson Dunn - February 2nd, 2021
- The Courts and Healthcare Policy | McGuireWoods Consulting - JDSupra - JD Supra - February 2nd, 2021
- LASD Won't Name Deputies Involved in Killing of Fred Williams III at Otherwise Uninformative Inquest - Streetsblog Los Angeles - February 2nd, 2021
- Xiaomi sues the US government over military blacklisting Just now - Siliconrepublic.com - February 2nd, 2021
- 2020 at the Supreme Court - Lexology - February 2nd, 2021
- FPAA Remembered: In Triangle Football, the Dixie Cup Was the Ultimate Game - Bama Maven - February 2nd, 2021
- Former Rutland cop denied new rape trial after ex-wife, citing perjury concern, declines to provide alibi - Worcester Telegram - February 2nd, 2021
- Are Patents Free for the Taking; or Does the Law Require Just Compensation? - Patently-O - January 29th, 2021
- CIT Dismisses All but One Claim in Section 232 Steel Tariff Dispute - Lexology - January 29th, 2021
- Inquest: Man Killed by Deputies in Willowbrook Was Shot in the Back - NBC Southern California - January 29th, 2021
- 'The Little Things' boasts powerhouse lineup - Post Register - January 29th, 2021
- Meet the People Archives - California Ag Today - January 29th, 2021
- Guest opinion: New Jefferson River flood maps are all wet - Belgrade News - January 29th, 2021
- Betraying Your ChurchAnd Your Party - The Atlantic - January 29th, 2021
- Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/18/2021 - MSNBC - January 29th, 2021
- Letter: Halting the Keystone Pipeline is a win for liberty - INFORUM - January 29th, 2021
- Selections from The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump BillMoyers.com - BillMoyers.com - January 29th, 2021
- Mitigating the Risk of Loss of a Delinquent Collateral Asset in the Era of Autonomous Zones - JD Supra - January 19th, 2021
- OPINION | Trump might invoke the 25th Amendment without resigning - Marianas Variety - January 19th, 2021
- Will Joe Biden Issue a Pardon to Donald Trump? - The National Interest - January 19th, 2021