Ag Labor Case Reaches the Supreme Court – Here’s What You Need To Know
March 24, 2021 In 2015, United Farm Workers (UFW) came onto Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry operation located on the California side of the California/Oregon border. Owner Mike Fahner filed a complaint with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, saying that the union violated that state’s law for union access to farms by not sending written notice and disrupting work in progress. UFW countered that those present that day on the farm were Cedar Point employees, not outsiders. The Board dismissed the complaint.
Fahner decided to file a lawsuit against California, challenging its 1976 law allowing unions access to private farms for three hours a day for 120 days of the year. After defeats at the state and district level, Cedar Point lawyers argued the case in front of the Supreme Court earlier this week, on March 22.
You can listen to a recording of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid at Oyez.org. Click on the speaker icon in the right column to both read the transcript to hear the audio.
What’s at Stake?
As is the norm with any Supreme Court case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid is about a larger issue than what happened in 2015.
Joshua Thompson, an attorney with the nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation who represented Cedar Point before the Supreme Court, is arguing that the law violates the U.S. Constitution. California lawmakers created the 1975 “right to access” rule to give unions a chance to ensure migrant workers had decent working conditions, were aware of their rights, and to recruit farm workers for the union.
Not surprisingly, many see overturning the law as a threat to union organizing on every kind of job site across the U.S. And others believe this court case can allow property owners to keep many more people off the property.
“I’m sure many restaurants would say the same thing about food inspectors and say, you know, we want to allow customers on our property, we just don’t want to allow food inspectors to check to see if there are rats running around the kitchen,” Nikolas Bowie, a Harvard Law School professor and expert in labor law, told ABC News. “That ultimately is what’s at stake here.”
The actual arguments before the Court centered around legal terms and how previous Court rulings shed light on the case. For example, the Justices examined how forcing property owners to accept outsiders is legally similar to the government taking easements from landowners without compensation.
Hidden in that seemingly minor discussion, however, is a framework that will allow this single case to determine when landowners must give outsiders access to their property.
What Did the Two Sides Say?
When Thompson faced the Court, the Justices grilled him on why his argument to declare the California law in violation of the Fifth Amendment wouldn’t also bar inspectors.
He argued that the government was granted this type a right written into the Constitution, saying it was part of the common law that our legal system is built on. The California law, he says, forces property owners to allow access to third parties with outside of that Constitutional framework.
“With respect to the government’s authority to search, that was certainly present at common law. And the Fourth Amendment put limits on the government’s power to search, but it certainly recognizes that this a power that the government possessed at all times and certainly at the time of the California finding,” Thompson said in response to a challenge from Justice Neil Gorsuch.
When Michael Mongan, the lawyer arguing on behalf of California, took his turn before the Supreme Court, he argued that the law “carries out the purpose of the Fifth Amendment.” He says the limited times the law grants unions provides the needed balance to property owners’ rights.
How Will the Supreme Court Rule?
We will not hear the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid until early June, ABC News reports. But several news outlets who regularly report on the Supreme Court predict it will rule in favor of Cedar Point.
“Most of the justices — conservative and liberal — agreed the ‘right to access’ rule, adopted in 1975, appears to violate the property rights protected by the Constitution,” the LA Times reports.
Reporters made their predictions based on what the Justices said to the California lawyers defending the law.
“It seems to me that letting the government come and use your land for non-business purposes seems to be exactly what the ‘takings clause’ was intended to avoid,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The “takings clause” is part of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that previous Supreme Court rulings seem to favor Cedar Point Nursery’s stance.
Subscribe Today For
