In a controversial new ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a nursery that was made to temporarily give up its land for labor activities suffered a per se physical taking. This ruling was considered surprising for a number of reasons, including the notion that it was considered a physical taking rather than a regulatory taking. This could substantially impact how some states tailor similar legislation in the future.
The Case in Question
The case was Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which involved a regulation recently passed by California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB). The regulation “allowed union organizers to access agricultural employees at employer worksites under specific conditions.” Under that regulation, representatives from the United Farm Workers union (UFW) accessed the plaintiff’s worksite, though without giving prior written notice as required by the regulation. The plaintiff sued the UFW for taking access, and additionally alleged that the regulation was an unconstitutional taking without compensation, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The Legal Issue At Hand
The primary issue the court is dealing with is whether the ALRB’s regulation constitutes a taking under the U.S. Constitution, and whether it specifically is a per se physical taking under the law. This is important for two reasons: first, the Constitution requires that anyone deprived of property rights by the government be compensated for their losses. Second, if it is a physical taking as opposed to a regulatory taking, then the plaintiff has no responsibility to prove the taking, only to prove the extent of their losses.
The Court’s Ruling
The court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the regulation allowing labor organizers to access employees for labor organizing purposes was a per se physical taking. This is surprising, because most assumed the court would call it a regulatory taking, thus requiring them to go through extra steps to prove they suffered a taking. As a per se physical taking, however, they will have a much easier time seeking compensation from the government.
What This Means For Property Owners
For property owners, this ruling has some interesting potential implications for similar regulations, especially those related to labor organizing. However, the court tried to limit the scope of its ruling to avoid unforeseen impacts on other government activities. In particular, the court distinguished this from other cases where the government might intrude upon a private business without committing a taking, such as performing a health inspection, or other “longstanding background restrictions on property rights,” such as nuisance laws.
If you are an attorney assisting a client with a real estate transaction, you should contact the title insurers at Habitat Abstract. Our experienced staff will assist you with obtaining a title insurance policy that protects your clients and prevents unforeseen issues related to a defective title. Contact us at 1-888-99-TITLE (1-888-998-4853) or visit our contact page for more information.
