October Term 2020 · Docket 20-107
Does a state rule allowing union organizers on private land trigger a physical taking?
Farm owners argue a state rule forcing them to host union organizers violates the Fifth Amendment. State officials argue the rule is a limited, reasonable speech accommodation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case argued that an access easement is a per se physical taking. They stated that time limitations affect just compensation, not the existence of a taking.
the opposing sides argued the rule allows only limited access. They stated organizers may enter for three hours a day at non-work times. They argued this is a reasonable speech accommodation.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a state rule requiring private landowners to allow union organizers on their property constitutes a physical taking. the sides that brought the case seek a per se rule that any such access is a taking. the opposing sides argue the rule is a limited, reasonable regulation that does not trigger the Takings Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2021.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 9-11
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to declare the state rule a per se physical taking. They seek a rule that any government-authorized access to private land triggers the Takings Clause.
the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the state rule. They seek a ruling that the limited, reasonable access does not constitute a taking.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue that an access easement is a per se physical taking. They claim any time limitations affect the amount of just compensation, not whether a taking occurred.
the opposing sides argue the rule authorizes only limited, reasonable access. They contend the regulation is a narrow speech accommodation that does not trigger the Takings Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked whether the case involves an easement recognized under state law or common law.
Justice Thomas asked what level of visit would be reasonable enough to avoid violating the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
Why it matters
The outcome defines the boundary between state regulation and property rights. It determines whether private landowners must host government-authorized speech on their property. The ruling shapes the scope of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in the context of labor access.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 19-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.