Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: Property Law
  • Date Filed: November 13, 2020
  • Case #: 20-107
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: 923 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2019)
  • Full Text Opinion

Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.

California law (section 1152) grants workers the right to collectively organize and bargain. Cal. Lab. Code § 1152. California’s “Agricultural Labor Relations Board” (Board) interprets this law as a right for labor organizers to enter agricultural premises “for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support” if within a specified period and notice is given to the Board. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 20900(e). Petitioners brought suit against the Board, asserting an “uncompensated taking." The District Court denied Petitioners injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit held that the lack of continuous presence precluded it from being a per se taking. The court also denied en banc review. Petitioners argue the Ninth Circuit decision (1) constructs a circuit-split, see Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 (Fed Cir. 1991), and (2) is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Here, Petitioners argue that section 1152 easements interfere with their “right to exclude,” and the lower court did not afford appropriate respect for this essential property right in its reasoning.

Advanced Search

Back to Top