Labor Rights and Property Rights at SCOTUS

On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Broadly, the case pits the rights of unions to communicate with workers who work and largely live on site versus the rights of business owners to keep people off of their private property. More specifically, the case asks whether California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which allows union organizers to be granted temporary access to speak to agricultural employees on worksites—which are largely private property—amounts to a taking of property without just compensation that violated the Fifth Amendment. Hugh Baran and Robert McNamara joined Jeffrey Rosen to explain both sides of the case. McNamara, a senior staff attorney at Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of Cedar Point Nursery while Hugh Baran, staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at National Employment Law project, filed an amicus brief in support of the chair of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Victoria Hassid.

 A term that will be helpful to know for this week:

“Taking”:

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use.

Typically, a “just compensation” is determined by an appraisal of the property’s fair market value.

Courts have broadly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].