- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
- Date Filed: June 23, 2021
- Case #: 20-107
- Judge(s)/Court Below: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.rett, J. Concurring: Kavanaugh, J. Dissenting: Breyer, J.; Sotomayor, J.; and Kagan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §20900(e)(1)(C)(2020) allows for a labor union organization’s “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property in order to solicit support for unionization, up to three hours per day, 120 days per year. Petitioner, a strawberry grower, appealed the 9th Circuit holding that ruled access regulations did not constitute a per se taking because they did not allow public access to the property in a permanent and continuous manner. Access regulations appropriate a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitute a per se physical taking. Thus, the Court held that California’s access regulation was a per se taking because the regulation appropriates the owner’s right to exclude for third party enjoyment. The Court reasoned that duration only bears on the amount of compensation. The access regulation granted a right of labor organizations to invade the growers’ property, thereby constituting a per se taking. REVERSED and REMANDED.