The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), in a 6-3 decision, struck down a decades-old regulation giving union organizers the right to visit farmworkers on agricultural property, stating it violated property rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Two California agricultural producers—Cedar Point Nursery in Dorris and Fowler Packing Co. in Fresno—filed the case after United Farm Workers (UFW) organizers entered the property of Cedar Point Nursery, urging the workers to unionize. The decision by the court overturns a California law that allowed union organizers to enter private property for three hours a day, 120 days out of the year, to recruit workers.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated the California law “grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking.” Physical takings must be compensated under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment.
“Rather than restraining the growers’ use of their own property, the regulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties (here union organizers) the owners’ right to exclude. The right to exclude is ‘a fundamental element of the property right,’” the ruling continues.
Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“The regulation does not appropriate anything,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent. “It gives union organizers the right temporarily to invade a portion of the property owners’ land. It thereby limits the landowners’ right to exclude certain others. The regulation regulates (but does not appropriate) the owners’ right to exclude,” he wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Background
In 1975, California implemented the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which granted collective bargaining rights for farmworkers. The regulation allowed one union organizer for every 15 workers to meet with the farmworkers one hour before work, one hour after and during the lunch hour, for up to four 30-day periods annually. UFW organizers must serve notice to the employer and inform the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board before taking access.
In the early morning hours of fall 2015, Mike Fahner, founder and CEO of Cedar Point Nursery, stated union organizers entered the property without the required notice and began “waving flags, blasting bullhorns, and yelling” urging the workers to unionize, according to Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).
Cedar Point Nursery provides bare root strawberry plants for commercial growers and employs 100 full-time workers and up to 400 additional seasonal workers during the shipping of the plants.
Fresno-based Fowler Packing Co. stated UFW for three days tried to enter the property without notice but was denied by the packing company. UFW filed an unfair labor practice charge against Fowler, which was later withdrawn. Fowler ships table grapes, mandarin oranges and citrus and employs up to 2,500 workers in its field operations and 500 people at its packing facility.
In February 2016, Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Co. filed suit against the Agricultural Labor Relations Board in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California requesting an injunction stating the state’s authorization to allow union organizers on private property amounts per se taking without just compensation. The injunction was denied and the case was appealed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which also revoked the claims by the two companies and denied hearing en banc (before all judges of the court).
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in November 2020. Amicus briefs were filed by several agricultural groups, private property rights organizations, state attorneys general led by Oklahoma, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the plaintiffs. Briefs from several union groups were filed on behalf of the respondents.
On March 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments, with the Pacific Legal Foundation representing Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Co.
Reactions
Joshua Thompson, director of legal operations at PLF, praised the court’s ruling, stating, “When property rights are infringed by denying farmers the right to choose who can come and cannot come onto their property, the constitution demands that the government pay for that right.”
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) president, Zippy Duvall, said in a statement the ruling “sends a message to state regulators that it’s simply wrong to give outsiders access to farms, where families live and work hard to safeguard their animals and harvests.” AFBF filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution protects farmers’ and ranchers’ private property from unconstitutional intrusion from state regulations.
Western Growers’ Association President and CEO Dave Puglia applauded the ruling, stating it is an issue of private property rights and states cannot allow trespassing without just compensation.
“We applaud the Supreme Court for protecting the notion of private property rights as envisioned in our Constitution,” Puglia said. “We also commend Cedar Point Nursery, Fowler Packing Company and the Pacific Legal Foundation team for seeing this case through to its unequivocal conclusion.”
Following the decision, the United Farm Workers stated the ruling fails to balance private property rights with farm workers’ civil rights, stating they are generally seasonal workers and it allows them to inform farmworkers of their rights.
“Farm workers are the hardest-working people in America. This decision denies workers the right to use breaks to freely discuss whether they want to have a union,” the group said on Twitter.
Victoria Hassid, chairwoman of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, said they would continue to protect farmworkers’ rights, stating, “We are committed to developing a process that meets the requirements of the high court’s ruling and continues to protect farmworker rights in light of agriculture’s unique circumstances.”
SCOTUS reversed the 9th Circuit opinion and remanded the matter for further proceedings. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
