Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a landmark property rights case. The dispute centered on a California regulation allowing union organizers to physically enter agricultural employers' private property to solicit workers for up to three hours a day, 120 days a year. The plaintiffs, two California fruit growers, argued that this access rule constituted a physical taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment without just compensation. The District Court dismissed the claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on precedent that such a temporary invasion was not a categorical taking. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the regulation grants a government-authorized right to physically invade private property, which is a per se physical taking. The majority opinion distinguished this from mere regulatory restrictions, emphasizing that the right to exclude is a fundamental element of property ownership that requires compensation if taken for public use.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the California regulation constitutes a per se physical taking because it appropriates the landowners' fundamental right to exclude others from their property. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Whether a California regulation mandating that agricultural employers allow union organizers onto their private property for specific periods constitutes a "per se physical taking" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, requiring just compensation.

The ruling significantly strengthened property rights by limiting the government's power to authorize third-party physical intrusions without compensation. It clarified that even temporary physical invasions, rather than just permanent occupations, trigger a per se taking analysis, curbing broad regulatory justifications based on "background principles" of property law. This decision has major implications for agricultural labor organizing, workplace safety inspections, and other scenarios involving state-mandated access to private premises.