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. By taking the employers’ private property and giving it to third-party union organizers, the access regulation violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment.
The case is important for California growers and the Nation’s consumers. Union intrusions on private property hamper production, especially if they occur in the midst of a busy harvest season. By harming the growers, the regulation also hurts consumers, who are saddled with the resulting increase in prices.
The Ninth Circuit will hear the case at 9 a.m. on November 17 at Courtroom 1 of the James R. Browning Courthouse, 95 7th Street in San Francisco.
learn more about
Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould
PLF represents California farming businesses that employ around 3,000 Californians and produce millions of dollars for California’s economy in the form of oranges, table grapes, and strawberry plants. A state Agricultural Labor Relations Board regulation – the Union Access Rule – allows union organizers to go on private land to solicit support for unionization. In 2015, union organizers entered and walked across our clients’ property during harvest time, promoting the union with bullhorns. Some workers, scared and intimidated, left the property. PLF sued, arguing that this disruptive regulation effectively takes the farmers’ property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and also violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures.Read more
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›