Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California law granting union organizers the “right to access” an employer’s private property violated the United States Constitution because it took the employer’s property for public use without providing compensation. In the decision Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court ruled that a law allowing third parties to access a private employer’s premises, even for purposes of union organizing activity on a temporary basis (three hours per day, 120 days of the year) amounted to a physical taking of the employers’ property without just compensation. In its decision to invalidate the California law, the Supreme Court was careful to note that no employee resided on the employer’s premises. In ruling for the employer and finding that the California labor regulation violated the United States Constitution, the Court distinguished between laws such as California’s that would allow a physical occupation of private land by a third-party and laws that are permissible regulations of the owner’s use of private property.

The Court ruled a taking occurs when “the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else – by whatever means – or has instead restricted a property owner’s ability to use his own property.” Cedar Point, Slip op. p. 7. In an effort to distinguish the California labor regulation at issue in the Hassid case from civil rights and other laws that govern the conduct of businesses open to the public, the Court noted that “[l]imitations on how a business generally open to the public may treat individuals on the premises are readily distinguishable from regulations granting a right to invade property closed to the public.”  Cedar Point, Slip op., pp. 14-15.

Defining what can oftentimes be a nebulous standard of when a law constitutes an unconstitutional taking rather than a lawful regulation of use, the Supreme Court emphasized that a hallmark of a government taking is when the government takes away an owner’s right to exclude others from its property, “one of the most treasured rights of property ownership.” Cedar Point, Slip op., p. 7. As in all takings, the United States Constitution mandates the remedy for the property owner is compensation as opposed to a return of the property.

The attorneys in Lewis Rice's Federal Takings Practice Group focus on both proving the taking has occurred as well as establishing the value of the property that was taken. If you have questions around navigating when, how, and under what circumstances laws and regulations can constitute a taking, contact an author listed above.

Firm Highlights
News

David W. Sweeney Represents Advantes Group in $7.2 Million Apartment Project

More
Client Alert

FTC Reverses Course on Treatment of Debt Payoff Under HSR Act

More
News

Michael R. Thiessen Recognized as Pro Bono Spotlight by KCMBF for August

More
News

Lewis Rice Recognized as Top M&A Firm by BTI Consulting Group

More
News

John C. Bodnar Named BTI M&A Client Service All-Star

More
News

Four Lewis Rice Attorneys Named 2022 “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers

More
News

61 Lewis Rice Attorneys Named Best Lawyers for 2022, 16 Named Ones to Watch

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins Nearly $500,000 in Compensation for Sarasota Landowners

More
News

Lauren R. Carey Creates New Blog for Social Media Influencers

More
Client Alert

FTC Adds Teeth to the ‘Made in USA’ Rule

More
Client Alert

Missouri Now Requires Employers to Provide Leave and Accommodations for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Quoted in SHRM Articles on Employee Vaccination Status Disclosure and Employer Vaccination Policies

More
News

Matthew J. Haas Offers Commentary for Inside P&C Article on Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Golf Foundation of Missouri Awards First Larry L. Deskins, Sr. Scholarship

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins $1.5 Million in Compensation for Covington Landowners

More
News

Neal F. Perryman Named to Missouri’s POWER List in Employment Law by Missouri Lawyers Media

More
Client Alert

Property Owners Can Push the Issue Under Illinois Mechanic’s Lien Law

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

More
Client Alert

OSHA’s New Guidance Regarding Indoor Mask Wearing, COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates, Regular Testing of Unvaccinated Workers, and More

More
News

Michael D. Mulligan Publishes Article in ACTEC Law Journal Comparing Sales to an Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust and a to Beneficiary Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust

More