PLF files Ninth Circuit brief to salvage Growers' property rights
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould, PLF represents California businesses that want to make productive use of their land. Together, the businesses employ around 3,000 Californians and produce millions of dollars for California’s economy in the form of oranges, table grapes, and strawberry plants.
Unfortunately, an Agricultural Labor Relations Board regulation allows union organizers to go on private land for union purposes. In 2015, union organizers entered our client’s property, and meandered around with bullhorns. Some workers left the property during an important harvest season. Others felt scared and intimidated.
Today PLF filed its opening brief in the Ninth Circuit. PLF argues that the regulation isn’t just disruptive, but also a flagrant violation of constitutional rights. By redistributing property from property owners to union organizers, the regulation violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition on uncompensated takings and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures. We expect to file a reply brief by February 2017.
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 … ›