Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a California regulation that allowed union organizers to enter agricultural employers' private property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, to solicit support for unionization. Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company challenged the regulation, arguing that it constituted a physical taking of their property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit had upheld the regulation, reasoning that it did not constitute a per se taking because access was temporary and limited. The Supreme Court reversed in a 6-3 decision, holding that the regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers' property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking. The Court explained that government-authorized physical invasion of private property, even if temporary, requires compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the California regulation constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The Ninth Circuit's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Whether a California regulation granting union organizers a right to access agricultural employers' private property for up to three hours per day and 120 days per year constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, requiring just compensation.

The decision significantly strengthened private property rights by limiting government-authorized third-party access to private land. It has broad implications for labor organizing, agricultural employers, and takings jurisprudence, making it more difficult for states to compel property owners to allow union organizers or other third parties onto their property without compensation.