2020 Supreme Court term

CEDAR POINT NURSERY et al. v. HASSID et al.

Dockets 20-107Decided
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

A California regulation grants labor organizations a right to take access to agricultural employers’ property to solicit union support.

According to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), according to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), the growers contend that this regulation amounts to an unconstitutional per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court holds that when government regulation restricts an owner’s ability to use his own property, a different takings standard applies.

Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, determined that the access regulation gives rise to a per se physical taking.

Background and question before the Court

The regulation at issue is California Code Regulations, tit. 8, § 20900(e)(1)(C), which grants labor organizations a right to access agricultural employers’ property to solicit union support.

According to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), according to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), the central legal question is whether this access regulation constitutes an unconstitutional per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

What each side argues

Growers' Position

According to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), according to Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company (growers), the growers argue that the access regulation effects an unconstitutional per se physical taking by appropriating without compensation an easement for union organizers to enter their property.

What happened at oral argument

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

What the Court decided

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Why it matters

Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, stated that the access regulation gives rise to a per se physical taking.

The Court held that the case does not erase the distinction between trespass and takings.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 7f1e0fbbe5bedf426f88-r1-985ad4d406c5023b.pdfopinion
  • ee5f02c1148000796873-r1-aeeb5a30ab8be427.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.