Documents

Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould Documents 6-29-16

Memorandum Decision

Download

Case Attorneys

Wen Fa

Attorney

Wen Fa is an attorney at PLF’s national headquarters. He has litigated numerous direct-rep cases dealing with private property, equality under the law, school choice, economic liberty, and the First … ›

View profile

Jeremy Talcott

Attorney

Jeremy Talcott joined the Pacific Legal Foundation in 2016. He focuses on property rights, administrative law, and the separation of powers and federalism principles that (ought to) define American government. … ›

View profile

Joshua P. Thompson

Senior Attorney

Joshua Thompson joined Pacific Legal Foundation in August 2007. He primarily litigates cases involving equality under the law, economic liberty, school choice, and coastal land rights. Joshua was raised in … ›

View profile

Case Commentary

See all posts
Post

By Wen Fa

Oral argument in PLF’s access regulation challenge on Nov. 17

Next Friday, I’ll be presenting oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould. The case involves a challenge to the ALRB’s access regulation, which allows union organizers to use the private property of agricultural employers to solicit potential union members.

Read more
Video

Ninth Circuit schedules hearing in union access case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently announced that it will hear oral argument in the Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould on November 17 in San Francisco. In that case, PLF represents California citrus growers in their constitutional challenge to a law that forces them to give up their property for the benefit of union organizers.

Read more
Post

By Wen Fa

Briefing complete in challenge to access regulation

We recently filed our Ninth Circuit reply brief in Cedar Point Nursery v Gould The case involves a challenge to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s access regulation, which allows union activists to invade private property for three hours a day and 120 days per year

In its opposition brief, the ALRB argued that the access regulation survives constitutional scrutiny because it contains certain time, place, and manner restrictions (eg union activist could not access private property for more than three hours a day) The board’s argument is unpersuasive Government action that takes private property for the benefit of third-party invaders categorically triggers the protections of the Takings Clause Time, place, and

Read more