{"id":10140,"date":"2021-06-28T16:58:08","date_gmt":"2021-06-28T21:58:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=10140"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:16:45","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:16:45","slug":"us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in\u00a0Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, <\/em>a case involving a California law requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to enter the employer’s property.\u00a0 The employers claimed this was a taking of private property without just compensation, and the US Supreme Court agreed.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

\"\"

Photo by Bill Mason<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a> <\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Background\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

California law gives agricultural employees the right to self-organization and prohibits employers from interfering with that right.\u00a0 The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB) passed a regulation that requires labor organizations to have the right to access an agricultural employer’s property to meet and talk with employees and to seek their support for unionization.\u00a0 Under this regulation, agricultural employers must allow union organizers access to their property for up to 3 hours per day, 120 days per year.\u00a0 In order to have access, a labor organization must file a written notice with the CALRB and provide a copy to the employer.\u00a0 Organizers may enter the property for up to one hour before work, one hour after work and one hour during the lunch break.\u00a0 An employer who interferes with this right of access may be guilty of an unfair labor practice, resulting in sanctions.<\/p>\n

Cedar Point Nursery grows strawberries in Northern California.\u00a0 It employs over 400 seasonal workers and 100 full time workers.\u00a0 The workers do not live on the property.\u00a0 In October 2015, members of the United Farm Workers (UFW) entered Cedar Point’s property at 5 am, disturbing operations and causing some workers to join a protest, and others to leave the worksite all together.\u00a0 Cedar Point filed suit against UFW for taking access without giving the required notice.\u00a0 UFW counterclaimed that Cedar point committed an unfair labor practice.<\/p>\n

Fowler Packing Company grows and ships grapes and citrus fruits. It has 1,800-2,500 employees in its field operations and 500 in its packing facility.\u00a0 None of the workers live on the premises.\u00a0 In July 2015, UFW attempted to take access to Fowler’s property, but the company blocked entrance.\u00a0 UFW filed an unfair labor practice charge against Fowler, which was later withdrawn.<\/p>\n

Litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Because Cedar Point and Fowler believed UFW would likely attempt to enter their property again, they filed suit against several members of the CALRB in their official capacity.\u00a0 The growers claimed that the access regulation was unconstitutional as it was a per se<\/em> physical taking of their property without just compensation.\u00a0 They requested declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the CALRB from enforcing the regulation against them.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied the motion for injunction and granted the CALRB’s motion to dismiss.\u00a0 The court found the regulation did not constitute a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking because it did not allow the public\u00a0 permanent and continuous access to the property.\u00a0 Instead, the court believed, this claim would fall under the\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> balancing test analysis of a taking, which the growers had not pled or attempted to satisfy.<\/p>\n

The growers appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.\u00a0 The court looked at the three categories of regulatory takings law: (1) regulations imposing permanent physical invasions; (2) regulations depriving an owner of all economically beneficial use of the property; and (3) the remaining regulatory actions analyzed pursuant to Penn Central<\/em>.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit found the access regulation here did not fall within the first two per se<\/em> takings categories, and agreed with the trial court it should be analyzed under the\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> test.\u00a0 In a dissenting opinion, Judge Leavy viewed the access regulation as a physical occupation, even though it was not allowed to occur 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.\u00a0 Thus, he would have ruled in favor of the growers.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing\u00a0en banc<\/em>, but Judge Ikuta, joined by seven other judges, issued a dissent.\u00a0 She reasoned that because the regulation essentially granted a traditional property right (an easement in gross) to the union members, it was a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking.<\/p>\n

The growers’ Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was granted.<\/p>\n

Majority Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts issued the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.<\/p>\n

Overview of Takings Case Law<\/em><\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts began with an overview of the US Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence, outlining the two main categories of cases.<\/p>\n

First, cases may fall into the physical takings context.\u00a0 “When the government physically acquires private property for a public use, the Takings Clause imposes a clear and categorial obligation to provide the owner with just compensation.” Physical takings can occur when property is seized by eminent domain, when the government takes property without acquiring title, or when the government physically occupies property.\u00a0 These types of physical takings cases “are the clearest sort of taking” and are assessed “using a simple, per se<\/em> rule: The government must pay for what it takes.”<\/p>\n

Second, when the government imposes regulations that restrict an owner’s ability to use his own property, that falls into a separate category of analysis. To determine whether a use restriction effects a taking, the Court applies the\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> balancing test, which looks at factors including the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.<\/p>\n

The key distinction between these two categories of takings is “whether the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else–by whatever means–or has instead restricted a property owner’s ability to use his own property.”<\/p>\n

Analysis of Access Law<\/em><\/p>\n

The majority held “the access regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se <\/em>physical taking.” Rather than restraining the growers’ use of their property, the regulation appropriates the owners right to exclude for the enjoyment of third parties.\u00a0 This right to exclude is a cornerstone of private property rights. The right to exclude falls within the interests the government cannot take without paying just compensation. Here, the regulation allows the union organizers to physically invade the growers’ properties, thereby resulting in a per se <\/em>physical taking for which just compensation is required.<\/p>\n

Discussion of Continuous and Permanent Access<\/em><\/p>\n

Next, the Chief Justice addressed a concern raised by both the Ninth Circuit and Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion: The regulation does not allow permanent and continuous access 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.\u00a0 Both the Ninth Circuit and the dissent conclude a per se<\/em> taking cannot occur if it allows access short of 365 days per year.\u00a0 Chief Justice Roberts responded, “that position is insupportable as a matter of precedent and common sense. There is no reason the law should analyze an abrogation of the right to exclude in one manner if it extends for 365 days, but in an entirely different manner if it lasts for 364.”<\/p>\n

Prior\u00a0 case law recognized both temporary and permanent physical takings.\u00a0 The duration or size of the appropriation bears only on the amount of compensation, as was seen in\u00a0Loretto<\/em>, a case involving a small cable box.\u00a0 Further, takings may be intermittent rather than continuous.\u00a0 For example the Court cited to Causby<\/em>, a case involving overflights of private property occurring only during 4% of takeoffs and 7% of landings at the airport.\u00a0 \u00a0“The fact that a right to take access is exercised only from time to time does not make it any less a physical taking.”<\/p>\n

Discussion of Easement Creation<\/em><\/p>\n

The CALRB and dissent both argue that the regulation did not grant a true easement in gross because there was no right that could be transferred or recorded and did not meet the definition of an easement under state property law.\u00a0 The majority rejected this argument, finding that the CALRB cannot avoid takings liability by merely mismatching the regulation from state easement law. Again, it is the fact that the growers’ right to exclude is curtailed that results in the taking, the fact that there was no formal condemnation of an easement does not change that. “Because the government appropriated a right to invade, compensation was due.”<\/p>\n

Distinction of PruneYard Opinion<\/em><\/p>\n

Next, the Opinion turned to the Supreme Court decision in\u00a0PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins<\/em>, where the Court applied\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> to a regulation allowing people to engage in leafletting at a privately-owned shopping center.\u00a0 The CALRB and the dissent argue that this case shows that limiting rights to private property should be analyzed under Penn Central\u00a0<\/em>rather than a\u00a0per se<\/em> taking. The majority disagreed, drawing the distinction that the shopping center in\u00a0PruneYard<\/em> was open to the public, while the growers’ properties were not.<\/p>\n

Discussion of Appropriation versus Regulation<\/i><\/p>\n

The dissent argues that the law does not actually appropriate anything, but merely regulates the owners’ right to exclude. Because of this, the dissent believes, it should be analyzed under the\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> balancing test.\u00a0 The majority disagrees.\u00a0 “We cannot agree that the right to exclude is an empty formality, subject to modification at the government’s pleasure.\u00a0 On the contrary, it is a fundamental element of the property right that cannot be balanced away.”<\/p>\n

Discussion of Potential Broader Impact<\/em><\/p>\n

Both the CALRB and the dissent warn that treating the access regulation as a\u00a0per se<\/em> taking will endanger a number of state and federal regulations allowing government entry onto private property.\u00a0 The majority believes this fear is unfounded for three reasons.<\/p>\n

First, this holding does not change the distinction between trespass and takings.\u00a0 “Isolated physical invasions, not undertaken pursuant to a granted right of access, are properly assessed as individual torts rather than appropriations of property.”<\/p>\n

Second, many government-authorized physical invasions do not constitute a taking because they are consistent with “longstanding background restrictions on property rights.”\u00a0 For example, it is not a taking for the government to require a landowner to abate a nuisance, because he had no right to engage in a nuisance in the first place.\u00a0 Similarly, a taking would not occur if entrance were allowed for public or private necessity or to effect an arrest or enforce criminal law under certain circumstances.<\/p>\n

Third, a taking would not occur if the government required property owners to concede a right of access as a condition of obtaining a certain benefit.\u00a0 Thus, government health and safety inspection regimes would generally not constitute a taking.\u00a0 If the government conditions a grant of a permit, license, or regulation on allowing access for reasonable health and safety inspections, a taking likely would not occur.<\/p>\n

In summary, “None of these considerations undermine our determination that the access regulation here gives rise to a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking.\u00a0 Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers’ land.\u00a0 Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises.\u00a0 And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public.\u00a0 The access regulation amounts to a simple appropriation of private property.”<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n

Thus, the access regulation constitutes a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking.\u00a0 The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit opinion and remanded for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Kavanaugh\u00a0<\/strong>Concurrence<\/b><\/p>\n

Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain why he believes the Court’s opinion in\u00a0NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox<\/em> also further supports the majority opinion.\u00a0 In particular, Justice Kavanaugh explains that case held that union organizers could access property only when it was “needed,” meaning when the employees live on company property and the organizers have no other way to communicate with employees.\u00a0 Because there was no such “need” here, the access regulation constituted a taking.<\/p>\n

Dissenting Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.\u00a0 The dissent’s focus is on the question of how this takings claim should be analyzed–as a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking or as a\u00a0Penn Central<\/em> regulatory taking.\u00a0 If the former, there is no need to look further and compensation must be paid.\u00a0 If the later, “there is every need to look further” and payment is required only if the regulation “goes too far.” Justice Breyer believes the access regulation is not a\u00a0per se<\/em> taking and should be analyzed under Penn Central<\/em>.<\/p>\n

First, Justice Breyer states that the access regulation does not appropriate anything, but merely regulates the growers’ right to exclude. The access granted is not any traditional property interest in land as it does not grant the union organizers any traditional property interest in the estate such as fee simple or an easement.<\/p>\n

Second, he explains that prior cases distinguish between regulations that provide a permanent right of access (per se<\/em> takings) and those that provide nonpermanent rights of access (Penn Central<\/em>). Here, he reasons, the access regulation is not permanent.\u00a0 There is no fixed structure, the growers are not forever denied the power to control the use of their property, and it does not allow permanent access to the union organizers.\u00a0 This case, the dissent believes, is more akin to\u00a0PruneYard<\/em>, as that involved a regulation allowing people to access private property to speak to others subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.\u00a0 The majority points out the distinction between a shopping center opened to the public and agricultural operations that are not, but the dissent says those are things for a balancing test to consider.<\/p>\n

Third, he addresses the number of ordinary regulations that permit entry onto a person’s property.\u00a0 These include food product examination to preschool license requirement inspections, and a host of other examples included in the dissenting opinion.\u00a0 The dissent believes that the majority’s attempt to address this by creating three exceptions to the takings rule–isolated physical takings are private torts, government access consistent with longstanding background restrictions are not a taking, and entry conditioned on a benefit is not a taking–will only result in more complexity and confusion.\u00a0 The dissent criticizes each exception, pointing out unanswered questions.\u00a0 For example, what constitutes “isolated?” Once a week?\u00a0 Once a month? Where is the line between taking and trespass?<\/p>\n

Lastly, the dissent points out that the takings clause prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation.\u00a0 Here, the growers did not seek compensation–indeed, they did not allege any damages–but instead, sought injunctive relief.\u00a0 Justice Breyer notes that on remand, California should have the ability to avoid injunctive relief by providing compensation.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

First, this case illustrates the importance of categorizing any takings claim as either a\u00a0per se<\/em> physical taking or a\u00a0Penn Central\u00a0<\/em>taking.\u00a0 That is really what this entire fight is over.\u00a0 The reason it is so important is that it is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail on a case if it can convince the court it is as per se<\/em> taking.\u00a0 Here, both the majority and dissenting opinions said as much.\u00a0 If it is a physical invasion, compensation is owed, period.\u00a0 If it is not and the\u00a0Penn Central\u00a0<\/em>balancing test comes into play, things are much more complicated for a plaintiff.\u00a0 To hear more about regulatory takings law, check out this prior podcast episode<\/a> I did with Jesse Richardson.<\/p>\n

Second, it will be really interesting to see the result of this opinion on other access regulations.\u00a0 Certainly the majority tried to ensure the holding was limited by listing the three exceptions, but as the dissent pointed out, none of those exceptions are perfectly clear, bright-line rules.\u00a0 Will this result in a flood of additional litigation that will require lower courts to flesh out what the limits of this case will be?\u00a0 I think that may be likely.<\/p>\n

Third, as the dissent points out, the remedy on remand is a really interesting issue here.\u00a0 The fact that the regulation is a taking does not mean that it is illegal and must be stricken, it means that if that access is going to be granted, just compensation must be paid.\u00a0 Here, the plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing the regulation from being enforced.\u00a0 Will California seek to continue allowing access and come up with a mechanism for paying compensation?\u00a0 If so, how would the compensation owed be calculated?\u00a0 Who would have the burden of proving just compensation? Would the CALRB or the union organizers pay the cost?\u00a0 Lots of interesting questions to be answered there.<\/p>\n

Finally, this case certainly does stand for the proposition that the loss of the right to exclude someone from one’s property, even if not 7 days a week, 365 days a\u00a0 year, is a fundamental property right falling under the per se<\/em> line of cases are requiring just compensation be made.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in\u00a0Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case involving a California law requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to enter the employer’s property.\u00a0 The employers claimed this was a taking of private property without just compensation, and the US Supreme Court agreed.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background\u00a0 California law gives agricultural employees the right to self-organization and prohibits employers from interfering with that right.\u00a0 The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB) passed a regulation that requires labor organizations to… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":10142,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-takings","category-united-states-supreme-court-decisions"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nUS Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in\u00a0Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case involving a California law requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to enter the employer’s property.\u00a0 The employers claimed this was a taking of private property without just compensation, and the US Supreme Court agreed.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background\u00a0 California law gives agricultural employees the right to self-organization and prohibits employers from interfering with that right.\u00a0 The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB) passed a regulation that requires labor organizations to... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2770,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Regulatory Takings\",\"United States Supreme Court Decisions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/\",\"name\":\"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1920},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2021\\\/06\\\/28\\\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in\u00a0Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case involving a California law requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to enter the employer’s property.\u00a0 The employers claimed this was a taking of private property without just compensation, and the US Supreme Court agreed.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background\u00a0 California law gives agricultural employees the right to self-organization and prohibits employers from interfering with that right.\u00a0 The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB) passed a regulation that requires labor organizations to... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1920,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case","datePublished":"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/"},"wordCount":2770,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Regulatory Takings","United States Supreme Court Decisions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/","name":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2021-06-28T21:58:08+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:16:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2021\/06\/bill-mason-gpbICD6M_xg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1920},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2021\/06\/28\/us-supreme-court-sides-with-agricultural-employer-in-takings-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10140\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}