Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Summary

The Supreme Court held that California's regulation granting labor organizations a 'right to take access' to agricultural employers' property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that the regulation appropriates for third parties the owners' right to exclude—a fundamental element of the property right—and that a physical appropriation is a taking whether permanent or temporary, with duration bearing only on the amount of compensation. It rejected the arguments that the absence of a state-law easement, the limited and intermittent character of the access, or PruneYard Shopping Center required evaluation under Penn Central, while identifying safe harbors for trespasses, background-principle privileges, and benefit-conditioned health and safety inspections. The Ninth Circuit's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.