Here are links to the summaries and analysis of yesterday’s oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107, the case asking whether California’s forbidding of agricultural property owners from keeping out union organizers is a taking:
Neutral
- Justices try to draw lines in California property-rights dispute (Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog) (“During 70 minutes of oral argument, the justices struggled with both sides’ arguments, even as some of them seemed inclined to give the businesses a narrow win.”)
- Supreme Court Wary of Law Letting Union Organizers Onto Private Property (Adam Liptak, New York Times) (“A majority of the justices seemed uneasy with a California regulation that allows union representatives to meet with farmworkers at their worksites for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year. The regulation’s drafters said this was the only practical way to give the workers, who are often poorly educated and hard to locate, a realistic chance to consider joining a union. But several justices said they were concerned about ruling that the regulation amounted to a government taking of property, fearing such a decision could endanger all kinds of laws authorizing entry onto private property, including government safety inspections and visits from social services workers.”).
Government
- High-Stakes Supreme Court Clash Between Growers, Farmworkers Could Blow Up Other Laws (Nina Totenberg, NPR) (“In short, a decision in favor of the the growers, arguably, could undermine many of those laws aimed at protecting not just farmworkers, but the American public.”)
- The Supreme Court confronts a union-busting argument that’s too radical even for Kavanaugh (Ian Millhiser, VOX) (“[T]here are almost certainly five justices — and there may be as many as nine justices — who believe that the pro-union California regulation at issue in Cedar Point is unconstitutional. That regulation allows union organizers to enter onto farm worksites for a few hours a day, and for about a third of the year, in order to try to convince those workers to unionize.).
- Farm Owners Made Anti-Union Arguments to Supreme Court, and It Did Not Go Well (Elura Nanos, Law & Crime) (“The high court’s decision has potential for broad impact on property rights, which could lead to an impact on several other areas of law. If the justices’ attitudes toward the petitioners during oral arguments was any indication, though, the Court will be siding with the unions.”).
- Supreme Court Unlikely to Block Union Intrusions on Farms (Alexandra Jones, Courthouse News) (“Two fruit growers waged an uphill battle Monday at the Supreme Court in their challenge of a California law that gives union representatives three hours a day, 120 days a year, to organize farmworkers on the farm’s own property.”).
Property owners
- Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Major Takings Case—Property Owners Seem Likely to Prevail (Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy) (“Fortunately, it looks like a majority of the justices are likely to vote against the state in this case. During the oral argument, several justices pointed out that, under the approach advocated by the lower court decision and by the state of California, any access requirement that lasts less than 365 days per year or does not cover all daylight hours would not be a per se taking. And that’s true regardless of the purpose of the government policy, and regardless of the amount of disruption caused.”).
And if you don’t want to rely on others’ accounts of the arguments, you can read the transcript or listen to the recording yourself.
Now we wait. Probably til June.