Supreme Court docket Limits Capability To Compel Entry To Personal Property With out Compensation – Employment and HR

United States:

The Supreme Court restricts the ability to force access to private property without compensation

August 11, 2021

Lewis Rice

To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com.

On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court ruled that California law granting union organizers the “right of access” to an employer’s private property violated the United States Constitution by removing the employer’s property without compensation for it public use. In the decision of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court ruled that a law allowing third parties access to the premises of a private employer, even for the purposes of unionizing on a temporary basis (three hours a day, 120 days a year) without a physical expropriation of the employer’s property equated to fair compensation. In its decision to invalidate California law, the Supreme Court made sure that no workers were living on the employer’s premises. In ruling in favor of the employer and finding that California’s Labor Code was in violation of the United States’ Constitution, the Court distinguished between laws such as California, which would allow third parties to physically occupy private property, and laws that allow regulations for the use by the owner represent the private property.

The court ruled that revenue occurs when “the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else – by whatever means – or has instead restricted a property owner’s ability to use their own property.” Cedar Point, Slip op. P. 7. In an effort to distinguish the California Labor Code at issue in the Hassid case from civil rights and other laws governing the conduct of businesses open to the public, the Court found that “[l]Imitations of the way a general public business can treat people on the premises is easy to distinguish from regulations granting the right to break into property closed to the public. ”Cedar Point, Slip op., P. 14-15.

The Supreme Court defined what can often be a nebulous measure of when a law is an unconstitutional income rather than a lawful use regime, “one of the most valuable property rights.” Cedar Point, Slip op., P. 7. As in all cases, the United States Constitution provides that the remedy for the landowner is compensation as opposed to returning the property.

Lewis Rice’s Federal Takes Practice Group attorneys focus on both proving income and establishing the value of the property being acquired. If you have any questions about navigation, when, how, and under what circumstances laws and regulations may constitute an intake, please contact one of the authors listed above.

Originally published July 15, 2021.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. Expert advice should be sought regarding your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Employment and Workers

Another round of changes to the Illinois Equal Pay Act

Taffeta Stettinius & Hollister

Just over three months ago, on March 23, 2021, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed Senate Act 1480 amending the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983 …