cedar pt nursery v ufw /ca
see bak txt
merri ok
takings
union cement trucks?
===
1 23 no sign of aclu?
===
United Farm Workers’ Statement on Supreme Court Decision
Posted on June 23, 2021 by Jocelyn Sherman
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cedar Point v. ALRB makes a racist and broken farm labor system even more unequal. Farm workers are the hardest working people in America. This decision denies them the right to use their lunch breaks to freely discuss whether they want to have a union. The Supreme Court has failed to balance a farmer’s property rights with a farm worker’s human rights.
===
on labor
race-and-exclusion-in-the-cedar-point-takings-case
next week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid*, where it will consider whether a 1975 rule by California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board allowing union organizers intermittent access to employers’ property constitutes a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
The case is odd because the California Supreme Court already declared the rule constitutional back in 1976 and the US Supreme Court refused to grant an appeal. So why is this forty-year old, little-known, little-used rule, at the center of a Supreme Court showdown?
Andrew Strom writing for OnLabor argued that declaring the rule a taking would be totally contradictory to the Supreme Court’s Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. Others have speculated that that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do: dramatically expand the circumstances when government regulations constitute “takings.” From a labor perspective, it is significant that the fight over private property continues to erupt in the area of labor law, and specifically about a labor law that grants power to a group of historically disenfranchised workers who are overwhelmingly people of color and immigrants.
In the 1910s farmworkers in California began organizing with the Industrial Workers of the World. Due to exclusionary migration patterns California farmworkers were a diverse group of workers of color, including Mexican, Indigenous, Japanese, Black, Chinese, and Filipino workers. More than 10,000 farmworkers engaged in strikes and direct actions, letting crops rot to win contracts and chasing replacement workers off of their fields. In the 1930s, the newly created Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union (CAWIU) organized strikes of workers in the Central Valley, culminating in the 1933 San Joaquin Valley Cotton strike where tens of thousands of Latinx, Black and white farmworkers struck. The growers and police responded with violence, shooting 11 strikers and killing two.
Growers pushed through anti-picketing laws across the state and helped arrest CAWIU leaders under criminal syndicalism charges. Fast forward to the 1960s when Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and other leaders formed the United Farm Workers and organized thousands of farmworkers, mostly Mexican and indigenous workers, leading strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience actions up and down California. The Delano Grape Strike, for example, lasted five years and was accompanied by a consumer boycott that 17 million Americans participated in. Hundreds of UFW members were arrested for violating picketing injunctions, trespassing onto farms, and other infractions.
Farmworkers nationally have been excluded from most legal rights and worker protections. Due to anti-Black racism and wanting to uphold the white supremacist plantation-style economy of the South, farmworkers were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, which protects workers’ right to unionize. Farmworkers were also excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Social Security Act (today farmworkers are guaranteed minimum wages but not overtime.)
In 1975, due to relentless organizing by the UFW and a somewhat sympathetic governor, California passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA). The law, modeled after the NLRA, granted farmworkers legal protections to unionize, to collectively bargain, and to strike. It established a five-member Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and a General Counsel. For the first time, California farmworkers were extended the basic organizing protections that most other workers had exercised for forty years.
However, UFW argued that the ALRA wasn’t operative on its own. The UFW argued that because farmworkers worked and usually lived on 300-30,000 acre farms, never got the opportunity to leave, and were mostly migrants only working seasonally, the only way to effectuate the law was to allow union organizers access to farmworkers where they work. The UFW immediately lobbied the ALRB to use its legislative power to create a union access rule. The ALRB agreed and issued the rule which allows two union organizers per work crew to enter the employer’s property for one hour before work, one hour after work, and one hour during the working day to speak to workers about the union. Organizers must give advance notice of their entry and are prohibited from disrupting agricultural operations.
The right of access only encompasses certain time periods before and after an election. In enacting the access rule the ALRB relied on the US Supreme Court’s findings that “organizational rights are not viable in a vacuum,” that in order to effectuate the right to organize, employees have to be able to learn about the union. The ALRB found that in contrast to industrial settings, alternative means of effective communication didn’t exist for farmworkers: home visits, mailings, or calls were “impossible” because farmworkers usually lived on farms, farmworkers spoke many languages other than English and didn’t have access to tv.
Immediately the rule was targeted by growers, prompting huge battles about the “infamous” union access rule. Opponents called it a “frightening and dangerous precedent leading to the further erosion and destruction of property rights of all citizens.” Growers sued but were stopped by the CA Supreme Court, which upheld the access rule against a takings charge. The CA court said it had been “thoroughly established” that “all private property is held subject to the power of the government to regulate its use for the public welfare.” }:
The court went over twenty different ways that private property had been regulated and pointed out how, unlike in those other areas where “recalcitrant forces” eventually retreated, “curiously the concept of property rights has become a rallying cry in the field of labor law.” :{The US Supreme Court then refused to hear the case in October of 1976 “for want of a substantial federal question.” Thirty-five years later the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation brought the same takings charge against the same California rule, except this time the Supreme Court granted cert. }:If the Court declares the rule a taking it would mean that property owners would have to be compensated when organizers enter their fields, though it is unclear who would pay, perhaps the unions or the ALRB.
Today, 99% of farmworkers have no social security or disability insurance. 95% have no healthcare. Farmworkers’ poverty rate is double that of the rest of the U.S. Farmworkers have one of the lowest unionization rates of any sector. In California 96% of farmworkers are Latinx and 91% are migrants. Farmwork is difficult, physical, and sometimes grueling work. Cheryl Harris in her seminal article “Whiteness as Property,” argued that since the very beginning of our country, the conception of property rights has been legally racialized. She described how in the early years of our country, it wasn’t the concept of race alone that enslaved Black people and exterminated Native Americans, but the “interaction between conceptions of race and property,” which played a key role in first establishing and then protecting white supremacy.
I can’t help but think of Harris when I think of Cedar Point Nursery. The fight today around the union access rule can look on the surface as a fight between differing conceptions of property regulation but when analyzed with a critical and historical lens it reveals fundamental issues of racial exclusion and white supremacy. Once again, conceptions of property rights and race are interacting in order to further exclude one of the most vulnerable groups of workers of color from even the most basic of protections.
Marina Multhaup is an Associate at Barnard, Iglitzin & Lavitt—a law firm in Seattle, Washington, that represents unions, and a former student member of the Labor and Employment Lab at Harvard Law...
===
The Supreme Court struck down a key United Farm ...}:
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2021/07/02 › supr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/02/supreme-court-struck-down-key-united-farm-workers-win-decision-has-some-infamous-echoes/)
Jul 2, 2021 — The case was brought by the owners of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry grower, and Fowler Packing Co., a grower and shipper of grapes and ...
wapo
Democracy Dies in Darkness
The Supreme Court struck down a key United Farm Workers win. The decision has some infamous echoes.
Four things to know about a ruling that could endanger many government regulations.
Analysis by Erin Mayo Adam
July 2, 2021
On June 23, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to organized labor. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the court ruled that a California regulation that enabled labor organizers to meet with workers on large farms violated farm owners’ property rights. The case was brought by the owners of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry grower, and Fowler Packing Co., a grower and shipper of grapes and citrus. The farm owners argued that the California regulation requiring they allow labor organizers to enter their properties amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation, and the Supreme Court agreed. Here are four things to know about the Cedar Point Nursery decision.
- Cedar Point Nursery eliminates a signature achievement of César Chávez’s United Farm Workers movement
The case deals with the constitutionality of a nearly 50-year-old California regulation enacted in the wake of César Chávez’s farmworkers’ movement, pitting the rights of property owners against the rights of workers. In the 1960s, César Chávez, Dolores Huerta and the United Farm Workers organized to combat the grueling and exploitative practices of large farm owners. The union led boycotts and strikes that prompted the state of California to pass the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975.
As part of the act, California created an Agricultural Labor Relations Board. One of the board’s most significant regulations — and the one eliminated by Cedar Point Nursery — requires employers to allow labor organizers access to their property. Under the regulation, employers are required to allow union organizers to enter their property for four months each year for three nonconsecutive hours outside of the workday (one hour before the start of work, one hour during lunch break, and one hour after work). The Agricultural Labor Relations Board argued that the regulation was necessary to enable unions to organize seasonal farmworkers, who live in dispersed areas and are only present on employer property for a few weeks at a time.
Without the regulation, unions lose much of their ability to help farmworkers organize to fight employer exploitation. Farmworkers in the United States are vulnerable to some of the most egregious human rights abuses in the country, including sexual violence and harassment, child labor, wage theft, illness and death. Unions are some of the most effective tools farmworkers have for fighting abusive labor practices. But with Cedar Point Nursery, the court’s conservative majority has dealt what could be a mortal blow to their ability to organize and combat abuses by finding that employers have a “right to exclude” labor organizers from their property.
The Supreme Court handed conservatives a narrow religious freedom victory in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
- The court’s ruling is narrow, but it has potentially broad implications
The Fifth Amendment says the government cannot “take” private property for public use without just compensation. In Cedar Point Nursery, the Supreme Court ruled that this clause protects a “right to exclude” groups from private property. The majority was careful to carve out exemptions to its ruling. For example, the majority opinion notes that the ruling does not prohibit government health and safety inspectors from entering private property to grant benefits such as permits and licenses and does not prohibit law enforcement from entering property while in pursuit of a crime.
The result is a narrow ruling that, nevertheless, is based in logic that could later be applied to a host of government regulations of businesses.
- The ruling could compromise anti-discrimination and fair housing laws
Legal academics like Niko Bowie of Harvard Law School point out that the Supreme Court’s reasoning could compromise anti-discrimination laws, fair housing laws and health and safety regulations of businesses. Bowie shows how White segregationists in the 1960s used the same legal reasoning the Supreme Court does in Cedar Point Nursery.
In the Supreme Court case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, segregationists used the takings clause to challenge the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. Segregationists contended that laws requiring them to serve Blacks amounted to a taking of their property without just compensation because these laws violated their “right to exclude.”
Justices disagreed, responding that the takings clause only applies to complete seizures of land. As other legal analysts have noted, the Roberts Court seems to contradict this Supreme Court precedent in Cedar Point Nursery, finding that even temporary intrusions on property violate the “right to exclude.”
The Supreme Court just took a case that could kill Roe v. Wade -- or let it die slowly
- The Roberts Court’s rulings on labor echo the infamous Lochner-era decisions
Cedar Point Nursery is not the first antilabor decision to emerge from the Roberts Court. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the court overruled 40 years of precedent to hold that public sector unions cannot require employees to pay union dues. And in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, the court found that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to bar workers from suing them collectively.
Some scholars have noted that the court’s new line of reasoning is reminiscent of opinions from the early 1900s. This time period was characterized by antilabor decisions and is commonly referred to as the Lochner era, after the infamous Supreme Court case Lochner v. New York, which struck down a New York statute that had established maximum work hours for bakers.
During the Lochner era, the judiciary often issued hostile labor decisions like Adair v. United States, which enabled employers to blacklist members of unions, and Loewe v. Lawlor, which allowed the government to use the Sherman Antitrust Act to suppress labor boycotts. In fact, pro-labor legislation faced such a degree of animosity that labor leaders turned to state constitutions to circumvent the federal courts.
Cedar Point Nursery is consistent with these recent antilabor opinions and a sign that the court is returning to an era characterized by judicial opinions that curtailed workers’ rights.
Erin Mayo Adam (@erinadam0) is an assistant professor of political science at Hunter College, City University of New York; director of the LGBTQ Policy Center at the Roosevelt House; and the author of “Queer Alliances: How Power Shapes Political Movement Formation” (Stanford University Press, 2020)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/supreme-court-union-busting-cedar-point-nursery.html
no lnx
JURISPRUDENCE
The Supreme Court’s Latest Union-Busting Decision Goes Far Beyond California Farmworkers
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
JUNE 23, 2021
In the 1960s, the United Farm Workers began demanding better pay and working conditions for California’s agricultural workers, who were subject to egregious exploitation and abuse. Led by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, the union’s campaign culminated in the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Among other guarantees, this landmark law granted union organizers limited, temporary access to agricultural workplaces to speak with laborers. Businesses challenged the act as a violation of their property rights, but in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question.”
The Supreme Court of 2021—stacked, as it is, with six conservative Republican-appointed justices—sees things differently. On Wednesday, the court’s conservative supermajority held that California’s law violates the Fifth Amendment, which bars the taking of private property for public use “without just compensation.” Remarkably, the majority held that the law constitutes a “per se taking”—not a mere regulation, but an “appropriation” of property that flouts the owners’ “right to exclude.” The court’s 6–3 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid is thus acrushing blow to organized labor, which often relies on workplace access to safeguard workers’ rights. It also undermines the broader legal framework that permits the government to impose all manner of regulations on private property, including workplace safety laws and nondiscrimination requirements. With Cedar Point, the Supreme Court has handed business owners a loaded gun to aim at every regulation they oppose.
Before we get to the devastating impact of Wednesday’s decision, some background: The Supreme Court has identified two types of “takings” under the Fifth Amendment, and deemed one much worse than the other. This distinction matters a great deal in Cedar Point. First, there are “per se” takings, which involve a major intrusion of private property. Historically, only the most burdensome laws—those that deprive property of “all economically beneficial or productive use” or constitute a “permanent physical occupation”—qualify as per se taking. In those situations, a property owner can automatically demand compensation or, if denied payment, block the law. Second, there are “regulatory takings,” which involve more minor restrictions on property, like zoning ordinances. It’s much harder to fight a regulatory taking in court, and even if you win, the government may have more flexibility in providing compensation.
The consequences of Roberts’ maximalist decision will be swift and severe.
For many years, Justice Antonin Scalia agitated to expand the definition of per se takings in a crusade to curb the government’s regulatory authority. He never quite succeeded—but in Cedar Point, Chief Justice John Roberts finished the job for him. Roberts’ opinion for the court deemed California’s union access law a per se taking that requires just compensation for agribusiness owners. How could that be? After all, union organizers are not on the property every day, but rather for three hours a day, 120 days a year; they do not constitute a “permanent physical occupation.” Nor do these organizers halt “all economically beneficial or productive use” of the land; most employees keep working, harvesting the produce that makes their bosses wealthy.
To get around this problem, Roberts changed the law (under the guise of applying precedent): He declared that a law that temporarily limits a property owner’s “right to exclude” qualifies as a per se taking of private property, compelling the government to pay the property owner. Any time a regulation allows third parties to “physically invade” property—even for a brief time—it “takes” that property under the Fifth Amendment, the chief justice concluded. As a result, the state must either compensate property owners or else cease its activities.
As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in dissent, this holding does not fit with Supreme Court precedent. Yes, the court has held that a temporary “physical appropriation” of property is a per se taking. But, Breyer wrote, California’s law “does not appropriate anything. It does not take from the owners a right to invade (whatever that might mean). It does not give the union organizations the right to exclude anyone. It does not give the government the right to exclude anyone.” Instead, the law merely “limits the landowners’ right to exclude certain others.” Until Wednesday, such regulations had not been deemed a per se taking. Now they will be.
The consequences of Roberts’ maximalist decision will be swift and severe. Most obviously, it will hobble unions’ ability to help California’s agricultural workers, who toil in dangerous conditions, facing the persistent threat of illness and death, for rock-bottom wages. Agribusinesses are notorious for exploiting these laborers, many of whom are immigrants who speak limited English.California’s union access rule arose out of necessity: Many farmworkers are migrants who continually move around the state in pursuit of seasonal work and lack permanent housing. They are, in short, inaccessible outside the workplace. If unions cannot speak to them at their job, they may not be able to speak to them at all.
Roberts did not explain how California could remedy the constitutional violation identified in Cedar Point, but it’s notable that the plaintiffs did not even ask for “just compensation.” Instead, they asked for an injunction excluding union organizers from their property. In theory, the state could fix the problem by compensating agribusinesses for unions’ “invasion” of their property. But how much would that cost? At oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett floated $50 per “taking”—a charge that would quickly balloon as every California agribusiness demanded payment each time a union organizer stepped on their property. And the plaintiffs suggested that businesses are owed much more. Are state lawmakers willing to cover that bill? Or will California require the unions to pay the cost? If so, might unions simply forgo farm access rather than pay out huge sums to every agribusiness they try to organize?
But the broader implications extend into nearly every corner of commercial activity in the U.S. In dissent, Breyer pointed to “the large numbers of ordinary regulations” that permit an “invasion of” private property. The government can enter a business to examine food products and inspect private schools, for example. Its agents can enter all manner of businesses to ensure compliance with run-of-the-mill health and safety laws. And it can force businesses to serve certain customers by passing civil rights measures. Are these per se takings?
To avoid answering this question, Roberts invented exceptions to Cedar Point’s new rule, including “a business generally open to the public.” As Harvard Law professor Niko Bowie wrote on Wednesday, however, the chief justice’s improvised exceptions won’t actually prevent businesses from refashioning typical regulations as a “taking.” Nondiscrimination laws “take” a club’s right to exclude women, religious minorities, and other disfavored groups. Environmental regulations “take” a landowner’s right to exclude inspectors. Fair housing laws “take” a landlord’s right to exclude Black renters.If guaranteed access to private property (including commercial businesses) is a per se “taking,” then, as Bowie put it, the government will have to start paying for what it regulates.
None of this is required by the original public meaning of the Constitution. Not even close. The Fifth Amendment’s framers understood the takings clause to apply only to direct appropriation of physical property. They carried on a long tradition, rooted in English common law and colonial practice, of authorizing entry onto private property for public purposes. The “right to exclude” that Roberts conjured in Cedar Point is not a constitutional principle but a policy judgment thinly veiled in legalese. It is the product of the conservative legal movement’s relentless demands for deregulation by judicial fiat—for a return to the era when federal courts struck down health, safety, and economic policies on the basis of their own political preferences.
The most optimistic spin on Cedar Point is that the Supreme Court will limit its reasoning to the context of unions. That, after all, is what the court did in 2018’s Janus v. AFSCME, hobbling public sector unions by creating a constitutional rule that applies to nobody else. The conservative justices’ evident hostility toward organized labor may not extend to the myriad regulations jeopardized by Cedar Point; the decision may be a ticket good for one ride only. That’s cold comfort to thousands of low-income workers who will now be subjected to even more abuse on the job. But if the court takes Cedar Point to its logical conclusion, we are entering a new era of black-robed rulers overriding lifesaving regulations put in place by representatives of the people.
links:
https://www.vox.com/21569510/supreme-court-unions-cedar-point-nursery-hassid-takings-california-fifth-amendment
scalia: https://www.vermontlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/Echeverria%20Scalia%27s%20Flawed%20Takings%20Legacy.pdf
roberts declared: https://twitter.com/nikobowie/status/1407722797653233668
necessity (amicus) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-107/168796/20210211155605647_CALIFORNIA%20LABOR%20AMICUS%20BRIEF%20IN%20CEDAR%20POINT.pdf
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-lochner-era-is-set-for-a-comeback-at-the-supreme-court.html
===
jacobin
The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Blow to Farmworkers — And All Other Workers, Too
megan day
at five o’clock one morning in October of 2015, organizers with the United Farm Workers (UFW) arrived at Cedar Point Nursery with the intent of informing migrant workers of their rights. When Cedar Point workers
later that month, they alleged low wages, unclean bathrooms, sexual assault at work, and intimidation from employers.
The UFW’s activity at Cedar Point was legally protected in California, which allows union organizers to access private agricultural property for three hours a day, 120 days per year. The rule dates to the 1975 passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, resulting from the efforts the farmworkers’ movement led by Cesar Chavez.
The owners of Cedar Point, a strawberry nursery nestled north of Mount Shasta and just south of the Oregon border, objected to the union’s presence, which precipitated the strike. In frustration they joined with another California agricultural employer, the Fowler Packing Company, which specializes in mandarin oranges and table grapes in California’s Central Valley, to challenge the hard-won access rule.
The conservative Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) took the employers’ case all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
The decision was a victory for agricultural employers, and for right-wing organizations like the PLF and the libertarian Federalist Society, which held multiple events closely tracking the case. The Right portrayed Cedar Point as a property rights case. After its victory, the PLF boasted, the “U.S. Supreme Court affirms right to exclude trespassers from your property.”
Cedar Pointis also a major setback for already beleaguered farmworkers and their unions. In addition to making farmworkers even harder to organize than they already are, some progressives fear the Supreme Court decision will establish precedents that could be used to help employers dodge inspections, further limit unions’ access to workplaces, and challenge the constitutionality of the PRO Act labor law reform legislation.
The rule that gives California unions access to private property was put in place for good reason. “It takes account of who farmworkers are, how they work, and the fact that they are really hard to reach,” says Daniel Costa, director of immigration law and policy research at the Economic Policy Institute.
Costa says that many farmworkers live on the premises where they work, meaning that in order to speak to them at all, union organizers need to be able to access private agricultural property. In other cases, such as at Cedar Point, workers live in housing that is rented out and therefore effectively controlled by their employer.
On top of being physically hard to reach, Costa says there are often language barriers, with many workers speaking a primary Indigenous language rather than Spanish or English. “They also sometimes work unusual hours because of the heat, and usually live and work in far-off rural places,” says Costa.
California’s access rule was designed to take these unique circumstances into account. It’s a recognition of the reality that if farmworkers can’t speak to union organizers face-to-face on the job, they often don’t get the opportunity to interact with them at all. At theNation, David Bacon corrects a common misconception about California’s access rule, writing, “When workers are protesting and organizing a union in the fields, they have a right to talk to union representatives at work. It’s a right of workers, rather than a right of union representatives.”
That right has come under attack at a critical inflection point for immigrant labor. The UFW and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee have between them only about twenty thousand members nationwide. Their capacity is so limited that they used the access rule on only sixty-two of California’s sixteen thousand farms in 2015, and even less frequently in subsequent years. The Cedar Pointcase, though it paints a portrait of agricultural employers overrun with overbearing unions enjoying a legal right to trespass on private property, is in fact a major blow to an already very weak farmworkers’ labor movement.
On top of that, there are significant changes underway that further threaten to undermine immigrant farmworkers’ right to organize. “The border security is so tight that there aren’t new flows of unauthorized migrant workers coming in to work on farms,” Costa explains. “The average age of farmworkers is creeping up, and employers are complaining of labor shortage. So employers have shifted to bringing in H-2A workers on temporary visas” to meet their labor needs.
The number of guest workers coming in on H-2A visas has been skyrocketing in recent years, to the point where “we’re basically going to see a new Bracero program all over again,” Costa says. H-2A workers have fewer rights in some cases than undocumented workers. And they’re much more likely to live on the premises where they work, making talking to them without access to agricultural property near-impossible.
In addition, says Costa, employers have been saying the wage is going up too fast. “They’re trying to push back against that through the regulatory process and by introducing new legislation that has passed the House, and that the Senate will probably consider eventually, that would put a freeze on the wages and keep them low,” he says.
All of this makes California’s farmworkers’ union access rule even more necessary at precisely the moment it’s been struck down.
Cedar Pointhas potential implications beyond farmworkers, too, which is perhaps why right-wing organizations are so invested in it. In the Washington Post, Erin Mayo Adams articulated a concern shared by many that the case could set a precedent for keeping inspectors and regulators off private agricultural property — to the potential detriment of workers, consumers, and the general public.
William B. Gould IV, former chair of both the National Labor Relations Board and California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board, worried that “one of the court’s casualties may well be the constitutionality of legislation [the PRO Act] passed by the House in Washington, pending before the Senate, which would give expanded access to reply to employer captive audience speeches filled with anti-union propaganda on company time and property.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is bad news for farmworkers and their unions. It’s also bad news for other kinds of workers, not only because of the direct legal implications of the case but because when immigrant workers’ pay and conditions are kept poor, it results in a race to the bottom that affects native-born workers too. That’s why it’s so regrettable that the more exploited immigrant workers are, the more they’re subject to xenophobia and racism, making solidarity between native-born and immigrant workers harder to come by.
“Losing the access rule is not going to stop farmworkers from organizing in California and elsewhere — or stop unions from helping them,” writes Bacon. “That is the key to raising their wages and fighting this country’s epidemic of rural poverty.” But they can’t do it alone. They need tangible solidarity from the broader labor movement, the progressive and socialist movements, and native-born workers who have nothing to gain from immigrant farmworker exploitation.
===
https://sjvsun.com/ag/u-s-supreme-court-rules-ufws-access-right-unconstitutional-sides-with-fowler-packing/
no lnx orig?
U.S. Supreme Court rules UFW’s access right unconstitutional, sides with Fowler Packing
In an opinion issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that California ag regulation requiring union organizers to have access to farming facilities to recruit and educate workers constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SUN
JUNE 23, 2021
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court sided with two California farming outfits who argued that a California agricultural regulation requiring union organizers to have access to facilities to recruit and educate workers constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
A decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with Fresno County-based Fowler Packing and Northern California-based Cedar Point Nursery over the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the principal regulator of farm labor in the Golden State.
Roberts was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“I think it’s the first step of a long journey of restoring balance to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act,” Howard Sagaser, a Fresno attorney representing Cedar Point and Fowler Packing in the landmark case, told The Sun. “As far as California agriculture, I think that it means that elections can be conducted more fairly without having union organizers coming onto their property.”
The case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, stemmed from two altercations at both agriculture businesses in 2015 with United Farm Workers activists.
UFW allegedly “tried to storm” Fowler Packing for three straight days, while union organizers “stormed” Cedar Point Nursery one morning and disrupted operations.
Union organizers had the right to enter a business’s property under the state’s “access rule,” as set forth under the 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act.
Under that rule, union organizers could visit worksites for up to 120 days per year, three hours per day to discuss unionization with employees.
With the Supreme Court ruling that the access rule is unconstitutional, Sagaser noted that this is a victory for property owners.
“I think Justice Roberts wrote a very well-reasoned opinion,” Sagaser said. “I think what should not be lost on people right now is that not only are property rights under attack, but individual rights of privacy have been under attack. I think that it’s important for people to realize that these rights are precious and we need to be vigilant in protecting not only property rights but rights of privacy.”
In his decision, Roberts called back to the Founders and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits private property from being taken for public use without just compensation.
“The Founders recognized that the protection of private property is indispensable to the promotion of individual freedom,” Roberts Wrote. “As John Adams tersely put it, ‘[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.’”
Roberts wrote that California’s access rule constitutes a per se physical taking by allowing union organizers to physically enter the growers’ land.
“Rather than restraining the growers’ use of their own property, the regulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties the owners’ right to exclude,” Roberts wrote.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the rule did not constitute a per se physical taking. Rather, it was a regulation instead of an appropriation.
“[T]he provision only awkwardly fits the terms ‘physical taking’ and ‘physical appropriation.’ The ‘access’ that it grants union organizers does not amount to any traditional property interest in land,” Breyer wrote.
Sagaser was not surprised to see Breyer joined in dissent by the Court’s other two liberal Justices.
“One always hopes for a unanimous decision, but realistically I think the dissent was along ideological grounds and not necessarily Constitutional grounds,” Sagaser said.
Sagaser also credited the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), his co-counsel, for their work on the case.
PLF senior attorney Joshua Thompson agreed with Sagaser in that the ruling “is a huge victory for property rights.”
“Today’s decision affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property,” Thompson said in a statement. “Pacific Legal Foundation is proud to have represented Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company at the Supreme Court.”
On the other hand, UFW responded to the Court’s ruling, saying it “makes a racist, broken farm labor system even more unequal.”
“[The Supreme Court of the United States] fails to balance a farmer’s property rights with a farm worker’s human rights,” UFW said in a statement. “Farm workers are the hardest working people in America. This decision denies workers the right to use breaks to freely discuss whether they want to have a union.”
wiki 3 23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Point_Nursery_v._Hassid
cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. _ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.
Background
In 1975, California's legislature passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act to help unions gain access to agriculture workers in the state, which at that time tended to be migratory with the seasons and difficult to contact otherwise. The Act allowed union members, with prior notice to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board but without consent of the property owner, to come onto agricultural properties up to three times a day, one hour at a time, up to 120 days during a year, to perform unionization activities.[1]
The dispute arose out of a 2015 effort by agricultural union organizers to persuade workers at a Dorris, California strawberry nursery and at a Central Valley fruit packing operation to join a collective bargaining organization. The visit to the northern California farm was conducted under the 1975 Act. The nursery owner sued for a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring future visits by labor organizers, arguing that the regulation results in a physical taking of property and an unreasonable seizure under the U.S. Constitution.
Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit[2] rejected the request for an injunction and the nursery's and fruit packer's arguments that state authorization of union organizer visits under the state regulation is a taking of property or an unreasonable seizure. The 2-1 opinion by the appeals court was written by Judge Richard Paez and joined by Judge William A. Fletcher. Judge Edward Leavy dissented. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that was joined by 7 other judges.
The California Supreme Court had previously rejected constitutional attacks on the regulation in 1976.
Supreme Court[
Certiorari was granted in the case on November 13, 2020.[3]
Amicus curiae briefs were filed by multiple organizations, including Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, New England Legal Foundation,California Farm Bureau Federation,**Western Growers Association**, California Fresh Fruit Association, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Institute for Justice, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and Buckeye Institute for the petitioner.
:{A coalition of states led by Oklahoma also filed an amicus brief on the petitioners' side.
Amici for the respondent included National Employment Law Project, United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council, Teamsters Joint Council 7, Constitutional Accountability Center, AFL–CIO, Service Employees International Union, United Farm Workers of America, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., and International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network. A coalition of states led by Virginia also filed an amicus brief supporting the respondent. Several U.S. senators and a group of local governments also filed amicus briefs in support of the petitioner.
The United States filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners on January 7, 2021, 13 days before the end of the Trump administration. On February 12, 2021, acting solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar notified the Supreme Court that the Biden administration had changed the government's position and urged affirmance of the lower court decision.[4]
The basic issue before the justices was whether the union organizer visits to the petitioners' facilities is aphysical taking of property and therefore automatically subject to an injunction or mandatory compensation under the 1982 case of Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. or, instead, whether the petitioners' claim should be evaluated under the various factors outlined in the 1978 case of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.[5]
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 22, 2021. Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Co. were represented by the **Pacific Legal Foundation**.
The Court issued its decision on June 23, 2021. In a 6–3 decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision and remanded the case back for further review. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion. Roberts wrote "The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property" and that "access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking" without compensation.[1] Roberts stated that this would not affect functions like government inspectors as those are beneficial to both employees and the public.[1]
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer wrote that the access granted to union organizers was only temporary and not permanent and thus should not be considered a taking, since the agricultural worked are not "forever denied" use of the property, and thus the law was "not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain".[1] Breyer also expressed concern that the majority opinion may be used broadly by landowner to block access from inspectors such as those "to verify proper preservation of wetlands or the habitat enjoyed by an endangered species, or for that matter, the safety of inspected meat".[1]
References...
===
---
Questions
Conclusions
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use “without just compensation.” There are two types of takings: physical appropriations of land and imposition of regulations that restrict the landowner’s ability to use the land. Physical takings must be compensated. Use restrictions are evaluated using a flexible test developed in*Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City*, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which balances factors such as the “economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.”
In this case, the California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property is a physical taking. The regulation does not restrict the growers’ use of their own property, but instead appropriates the owners’ right to exclude third parties from their land, “one of the most treasured rights” of property ownership. By granting access to third-party union organizers, even for a limited time, the regulation confers a right to physically invade the growers’ property and thus constitutes a physical taking.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion describing another way the Court could have arrived at the same conclusion, using a different precedent.
Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Breyer argued that the regulation does not physically appropriate growers’ property; rather, it temporarily regulates their right to exclude others and as such should be subject to the “flexible” Penn Central rule.
===
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ufw-aclu-join-battle-farm-worker-rights-1973-daniel-c-lavery/...
daniel-c-lavery 4 24
Daniel C. Lavery is an author, former Naval Officer, and retired civil rights attorney with thirty four years of experience who worked for Cesar Chavez's UFW in Bakersfield and Los Angeles, then continued that role at the ACLU as Director of the Farmworker project litigating seventeen class actions and many civil rights lawsuits from mid-1973 to January 1976. Two of his cases set important precedents in defamation and Class Action litigation.
His memoir, in paperback is at http://www.amazon.com/All-Difference-Daniel-C-Lavery/dp/1482676532/. It is available for a free look inside of the first 6 1/2 chapters at Dan's website: http://www.danielclavery.com and for Amazon's Kindle version: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BNXHV9Q. Thirteen five star reviews are posted on Dan’s website and more on Amazon.com. Some excerpts of his writing appear in various publications: Leroy Chatfield’s "Farmworker Movement Documentation Project" at farmworkermovement.us, “My First Trial for the UFW,” and “UFW and ACLU Join the Battle for Farm Worker Rights in 1973.” “A Berkeley Confrontation” was published in February 2012 at vvaw@vvaw.org, along with “Vietnam Savagery” in October 2012, and “Nixon Sabotaged Paris Peace Talks and Our Future” Spring 2013.
Peter Stine and Andrew Weller reviewed All the Difference in the fall of 2013.!! other five star reviews are on his website first page selection bar. Dan’s webpage contains memoir excerpts, short stories, poems, songs, media, political comment, and humor. A graduate of the Naval Academy at Annapolis Maryland, he navigated a Mach 2 jet in Florida, and the USS Oak Hill with 300 marines to Vietnam. He graduated Hastings College of Law, University of California in 1972. He taught Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, and Criminal Law at law schools in California. Dan received a two year Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellowship after civil rights and consumer protection studies at Howard University.
The ACLU of Southern California announced they were initiating a funded Farmworker project in late 1973. They became interested in assisting the strikers at a time when Teamsters, police, and growers threatened the workers’ civil liberties. Jerry introduced me to Ramona Ripston, the ACLU director, regarding this position. I interviewed with her and a professor of constitutional law at UCLA. He asked about my background, knowledge of constitutional issues, and First Amendment picketing and leafleting cases the ACLU had handled in the past. The next day Ramona said, “We have selected you for director of the project.”
...a l wirin
Wirin, General Counsel, Emeritus of the ACLU of Southern California, spent over forty years in defense of the Bill of Rights. He represented Stokely Carmichael and the Ku Klux Klan; and he designed the tax-payer’s suit permitting citizens to sue government officials to block illegal expenditure of tax funds. He successfully challenged California loyalty oaths, the state abortion law, and attacked the evacuation of 115,000 Japanese Americans from the West Coast at the beginning of World War II. I felt I had arrived at one of the pinnacles of civil rights expertise. I was so motivated, I worked sixteen hour days away from my new family. I had stepped into a dream job. The meetings at the ACLU with attorneys discussing their cases allowed me invaluable experience, since they litigated major challenges to violations of civil rights.
After the UFW grape contracts expired in April 1973, The International Brotherhood of Teamster (IBT) Union met with the growers and claimed to represent the workers. The UFW asserted they had procured fraudulent signatures by the purported workers. The AFL-CIO came out in support of the UFW strike and provided $1.6 million in strike benefits. A turbulent period of labor strife in the fields had just started.
[cops teamster goons, jerry cohen atty
http://www.danielclavery.com (author website)
https://www.facebook.com/danielclavery (Facebook)
https://www.linkedin.com/danielclavery.com (Linkedin)
https://twitter.com/Danielclavery
pol op BS lacy? jarvis
fox tv biz?
or over 20 years the California Political Review has been one of the most influential and respected publications for California political discourse. Founded by the late John Kurzweil, CPR has been one of the state’s leading outlets for thoughtful, innovative political news and commentary.
Our content is meant to be hard-hitting, solution-oriented and aims to hold legislators throughout the Golden State to higher standards and good governance principles to rebuild a vibrant economy, protect individual liberties and make California as business friendly as possible.
The California Political Review is a website advancing innovative thinking on CA public policy issues. Bill Saracino, who has been with CPR since its inception in 1990 is a contributing editor. James V. Lacy, author of the book “Taxifornia,” first published by Post Hill Press in January, 2014, is the publisher of the California Political Review.
In 2014, we welcomed Stephen Frank as Senior Contributing Editor and are proud to incorporate Steve’s “California Political News and Views” as a special section of California Political Review.
"ambush’ of Valley ag firms by UFW front-and-center with U.S. Supreme Court this month
March 19, 2021 By Stephen Frank 2 Comments
The case in front of the Supreme Court is simple. Should goons, posing as union organizers be allowed to trespass, harass workers and threaten farm owners. In the old Soviet Union, this would be allowed. In the United States can goons stop your business from operating and bully workers into paying them protection money, while calling it “dues”?
“The issue at hand in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which will be heard by the nine jurists on March 22, revolves around the state’s “access rule,” which allows union organizers to visit worksites for three hours per day up to 120 days a year to discuss unionization.
Fowler Packing alleges that United Farm Workers organizers “tried to storm” the business for three straight days in 2015.
That came around the time when the UFW allegedly “stormed” Cedar Point Nursery, a starter strawberry plant grower located along Highway 97 near the Oregon Border, and disrupted operations.
Nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation heard about the event in Northern California and connected with Cedar Point owner Mike Fahner and Fowler Packing to seek legal action to challenge the access rule.
If the goons/unions win this case, private property has ended and a Brownshirt regime, outside of government has been created. This is as important a case as the Court has ever heard.
Ambush’ of Valley ag firms by UFW front-and-center with U.S. Supreme Court this month
Daniel Gligich, The Sun, 3/10/21
A legal battle between California agriculture businesses – including Fresno County-based Fowler Packing Company – and the State of California over union rights will soon be taking center stage in front of the United State Supreme Court.
The issue at hand inCedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which will be heard by the nine jurists on March 22, revolves around the state’s “access rule,” which allows union organizers to visit worksites for three hours per day up to 120 days a year to discuss unionization.
Fowler Packing alleges that United Farm Workers organizers “tried to storm” the business for three straight days in 2015.
That came around the time when the UFW allegedly “stormed” Cedar Point Nursery, a starter strawberry plant grower located along Highway 97 near the Oregon Border, and disrupted operations.
Nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation heard about the event in Northern California and connected with Cedar Point owner Mike Fahner and Fowler Packing to seek legal action to challenge the access rule.
PLF attorney Joshua Thompson said the UFW attempted to intimidate the employees at both businesses.
“We certainly allege in the complaint that the purpose here isn’t to hand out leaflets and inform rights,” Thompson said. “Not only do they have the right to contact these workers in a myriad of ways, but they do in fact do so. The aim of the access regulation isn’t to set up a table and inform, it’s to intimidate. And that’s exactly what they tried to do to both of our clients, both Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company”
Thompson also argued that the access rule is outdated.
“One of the purported justifications for the access regulation is that you can’t otherwise access workers outside of being able to come onto the private property of the business,”Thompson said. “But in Mike’s case, for example, the union not only had that authority, but they did in fact follow the workers to nearby Klamath Falls, [Oregon], where their hotels were and continued to try to persuade them to strike and to join the union. But, of course, that didn’t happen, the workers decided that wasn’t in their best interest.”
Fahner pointed to social media as a game changer for communication compared to when the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board created the rule in 1975.
“I’d just like to get the message to everyone that we’re not against unions,” Fahner said. “Unions have their place. I’m sure they do. This law in today’s world is no longer necessary. With social media, you can communicate with people around the world effectively without having to have access to a person’s private property and place of business. Was there a day in time that this could be perceived as necessary? Maybe… The effectiveness of social media and getting the message out eliminates this right to access need.”
Cedar Point employee Victor Garcia called the UFW’s actions an “ambush” and said the event could have turned violent.
“To this day it gives me chills because it changed my life in a way,” Garcia said. “There’s people that say, ‘We need protection.’ That protection, I needed it when I was young when I was a kid, when I was in Mexico. I felt like it was an ambush. It wasn’t a protest. There’s a difference between a protest and an ambush, and that’s how I felt.”
The PLF produced a video that includes footage from the day the UFW visited Cedar Point:
Fresno attorney Howard Sagaser of Sagaser Watkins & Wieland PC is an attorney set to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court later this month.
Share this:
-
Filed Under: Stephen Frank's California Political News And Views
About Stephen Frank
Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.
===
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-decision-in-cedar-point-4375087/#:~:text=In%20Cedar%20Point%20Nursery%2C%20the,automatically%20counts%20as%20a%20taking.
Supreme Court Decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid May Provide Businesses New Opportunity to Challenge Regulations
On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid*, a case involving a California regulation that requires employers to allow union organizers to enter their property to solicit members. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the Court stood with property owners and held these unwanted intrusions constituted a “taking” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his majority opinion that allowing unions to freely come onto privately held land was a violation of property owners’ constitutional rights, even if unions “only” had fleeting access to the land. But this seemingly sweeping ruling declines to extend this logic to things like regulatory inspections overseen by state workers.This should serve as a powerful reminder that a conservative court is not a panacea to bureaucratic overreach, and regulatory reform must come through legislative and executive processes. This advisory breaks down the Court’s opinion and explores how the ruling might provide grounds for challenging other regulations.
:{
Majority Opinion
The central issue in Cedar Point Nursery was the constitutionality of a California “access regulation” that requires farm owners to allow labor union organizers to access their property in order to “solicit support for unionization.” The regulation provides that union organizers can access an employer’s property for up to three hours a day and 120 days per year.}: The farmers claimed the regulation amounted to the government taking their property without compensation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits property from being “taken for public use, without just compensation.” A typical example of a taking occurs when the government uses its power of eminent domain to seize someone’s land for the purpose of building an airport or widening a road. The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay for that land. Government regulations can also count as takings. For example, in one famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that a New York regulation requiring a landlord to install TV cables on her apartment building was a taking, since the regulation caused a “permanent physical occupation” of her property.
In Cedar Point Nursery, the Supreme Court ruled that the California access regulation is a taking because it forces farmers to give union organizers physical access to their property. The Court explained that any regulation that physically “invades” a person’s property automatically counts as a taking. The Court also stressed that “the right to exclude is ‘universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right’” in land. Since the access regulation limits the farmers’ “right to exclude” and forces them to give union organizers physical access, it takes away enough of the farmers’ property rights to require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
How Much Should The Government Pay?
One question that Cedar Point Nursery leaves open is what courts should do if they determine that a regulation is a taking. Since the Fifth Amendment requires the government to compensate an owner for a taking, courts usually direct the government to pay the value of the land the government took. When a taking is temporary, compensation usually equals the rental value of the property while it was taken. But in cases like Cedar Point Nursery, where the government limited the farmers’ property rights without taking their property altogether, proving the appropriate amount of compensation is difficult.Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the compensation could total as little as $50 for a union site visit. But the majority did not address this issue, leaving it to lower courts to apply different approaches.
New Path To Challenging Regulations?
The Court’s holding that some temporary physical invasions are per se takings could make it easier for businesses to challenge other regulations that give the government or others access to private property. Indeed, one commentator called the Cedar Point Nursery ruling “acrushing blow to organized labor, which often relies on workplace access to safeguard workers’ rights.” In reality, the case is less about the right to bar unions from one’s property than about the taking of one’s property without the “just compensation” demanded by the Fifth Amendment. That right to compensation could be extended to other regulations.Examples include the Occupational and Safety Health Act (“OSHA”), which requires employers to give a government inspector and employee representative (often designated by a union) access to their premises.See29 C.F.R. § 1903.3 (2021). However, the Court’s ruling identified some important caveats that could complicate efforts to challenge OSHA and other regulations.
First, the Court said that a regulation will not rise to the level of a taking unless an owner’s property is accessed multiple times. Unlike the access regulation, where union organizers entered the farmers’ property year after year, one or two instances of property access will not suffice. Second, the Court clarified that the government may always access private property in exceptional circumstances, such as “in the event of public or private necessity.” Finally, the government may require an owner to allow access to his land in exchange for some benefit, like a building permit. The Court explained that as long as the government’s access to the property has a reasonable connection to the benefit offered, the access is not a taking. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts seems to have no problem with this course of action. He wrote: “[T]he government may require property owners to cede a right of access as a condition of receiving certain benefits, without causing a taking . . . . [G]overnment health and safety inspection regimes will generally not constitute takings.” This comports with longstanding precedent upholding the government’s broad discretion to place reasonable restrictions on a business’s activity. Litigants who hope to use the Cedar Point Nurserydecision to challenge other regulations will need to explain why none of these three exceptions applies.
Businesses may have an opening to challenge certain regulations following the Cedar Point Nursery decision. Still, the exceptions in the Supreme Court’s ruling will likely limit its impact, as will the challenge of proving how much compensation the government owes.
Summer associate Micah Allred assisted in the preparation of this advisory.
===
raga pacific legal? takings? david bacon kpfa
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2021/06/supreme-court-california-farmworker-unions-property-rights/
no lnx
Supreme Court limits California union recruiting in favor of property rights
BY KATE CIMINI JUNE 23, 2021UPDATED JUNE 24, 2021
Crew workers carry picking ladders over unsold citrus in a field near Rocky Hill Drive and Spruce Road in Exeter on Monday, June 14, 2021. Ron Holman / Visalia Times-Delta]
IN SUMMARY
Commercial growers celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, but farmworker unions say this will make it harder for them to access workers and advocate for their rights.
In a blow to labor, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a decades-old California rule inspired by César Chávez that allowed union organizers to meet with farmworkers at their place of work. Commercial growers applauded the conservative court’s ruling to uphold property rights while union representatives vowed not to be deterred.
Two agricultural producers filed suit after organizers with the United Farm Workers sought to access their property to speak with farmworkers. The plaintiffs in Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, argued the California regulation requiring them to provide access up to three hours a day, 120 days a year was unconstitutional and unnecessary.
Dorris-based Cedar Point Nursery grows strawberry plants for commercial growers near the Oregon border; Fowler Packing Company in Fresno ships grapes and citrus.
Today’s 6-3 ruling fell along ideological lines, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreeing with the growers. They held that the access regulations allowed “physical invasion” of the land without compensation.
While growers celebrated the decision, labor activists say it will now be harder to access workers and advocate for their rights. As the decision was announced they vowed it won’t stop them from growing their ranks.
Win for property rights, loss for farmworker unions
Monterey County Farm Bureau Executive Director Norm Groot, who runs the private nonprofit association of farmers and ranchers on California’s Central Coast, characterized the court’s decision as a big win for ag, landowners and farm operations.
Groot said the decision championed property rights while prioritizing private farm operation security and food safety.
“It’s good for food safety that you don’t have visitors making incursions into fields to talk to employees while they’re on break, at lunch or working,” he said.
The Western Growers’ Association, a private organizationthat advocates for produce farmers in California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, also applauded the decision, calling it a “simple property rights case” and union organizers “trespassers.”
Not all California farmers are impacted by the decision.
John D’Arrigo, CEO of D’Arrigo Brothers in Salinas, said the Supreme Court decision wouldn’t change the way he works with the United Farm Workers (UFW). The company sells produce under the brand name Andy Boy.
His workers have been unionized through the organization for about 40 years. The contracts explicitly allow union reps access to the property and the farmworkers.
“We haven’t really had a problem at all because we’re used to it,” D’Arrigo said. “We’ve got a system, everybody understands the rules, and, quite frankly, we’ve been getting along famously with the UFW for many years, now.
“If you don’t have a contract and aren’t used to (organizers accessing your property), I could see it upsetting people. But for us, it’s a way of life,” he said.
Labor organizers absorbed the blow and said that the decision wouldn’t stop them from working with farmworkers.
UFW Vice President Lauro Barajas was disappointed to hear the Supreme Court had ruled against labor, but not frustrated.
“There’s always something that inspires or pushes us to continue our work,” he said. “The frustration is like giving up, and we can’t give up.”
Barajas said the Supreme Court decision favored growers, who he said historically have had all the power in the employer-worker relationship. The recent ruling, he said, gives growers even more power.
“It’s not good news, but normally we don’t live with good news,” Barajas said.
Union rule stems back to farm labor movement
Agricultural employees working on farms have been excluded from federal labor law since 1935.
Following efforts by Chávez and other farm labor leaders, California created the 1975 California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Among other things, theregulation allowed organizers to access farmer property a maximum of three hours a day, 120 days a year, in order to speakwith their employees and drum up support for unionization.
Businesses are supposed to be notified before organizers arrive, and organizers are then allowed to come during nonwork times such as lunch and before and after work. It is rare that organizers use the regulation –– California said organizers took advantage of it just five times in the 2019-2020 budget year and 24 times the prior year.
Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company challenged the regulation as unconstitutional and outdated, given that unions can now reach workers in many ways, including smartphones and radio.
The UFW told the justices that the regulation is more necessary now than ever. The union said farmworkers are increasingly indigenous workers from Mexico and the only effective way to communicate with them is in-person, at their job sites, asmany don’t have cell phones and speak only indigenous languages.
“A lot of these workers are living in labor camps owned by the employer, are transported to and from their worksites and these folks are isolated,” UFW Director of Strategic Campaigns Elizabeth Strater said. “They never leave their employers’ property. In some instances, they are isolated by design.”
Implications of Supreme Court ruling for property rights
The access regulation is unique to California. But unions and others had argued that ruling for the businesses could threaten regulations that allow the government to access private property to conduct workplace health and safety inspections, among other things.
:{
}:
Calling the farm labor system racist and unequal, Strater said she found it ironic “that Supreme Court justices who pride themselves on supporting local and state rules over federal rules have decided that farmworkers should lose under both.
“The Supreme Court has failed to balance a farmer’sproperty rights with a farmworker’shuman rights,” she said.
During March court arguments heard by telephone, the Associated Press reported Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court had decades ago considered how to balance the rights of unions and property owners. The court concluded that there could be “no access unless you can show that there are no alternative means of communication that exists,” he said.
The ruling is the latest hit to unions by the court under Roberts.
:{
}:
In 2018, the court’s conservative majority overturned a 41-year-old pro-union decision that allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join.
Still, it’s unclear how much will change as a result of the court’s ruling.
Michael Droke, a senior partner at law firm Dorsey & Whitney in its Food and Agriculture group, advises California agriculture corporations and co-ops. He suggested agricultural employers review policies and practices regarding on-farm access, and clearly mark their property, in order to ensure they can establish property lines for purposes of union access.
“Unions are still allowed to contact employers off the grower’s premises,” he said. “It is often easy to see where the grower’s employees are located, because employee cars are parked at the side of the field. However, bussing workers to the job site may create wage and hour risk under generally-applicable California law.”
For the record, this story has been updated to correct Norm Groot’s title with the Monterey County Farm Bureau.
This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.
===
it's not just the threat of heat stress that is escalating. Our new research shows thatrising temperatures due to climate change are making some pesticides up to 100 times as toxic.Current laws leave farmworkers at grave risk of injury and death—but we can help change that.
Urge your US representative to cosponsor the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act
==
https://www.utne.com/politics/cesar-chavez-united-farm-workers-union-ze0z1301zwar
Successes and Failures of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union
Learn about the successes and failures of Cesar Chavez, the United Farm Workers Union and the grape boycott.
===
===
mofo fedsoc amicus?]
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/california-regulation-ruled-an-uncompensated-taking-in-cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid
On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision for property rights. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that a California regulation allowing union organizers to access agricultural growers’ private property up to three hours per day, 120 days a year, is aper se physical taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated “[t]he Founders recognized that the protection of private property is indispensable to the promotion of individual freedom.” Thus, when government authorizes the physical invasion of private property, the government has taken private property and must pay for what it takes.
In Cedar Point Nursery,a group of property owners challenged California’s access regulation as theuncompensated taking of an easement, and a physical appropriation of their property. The government defended its regulation by arguing that the regulation was not a per se physical taking and was instead a regulatory taking that should be analyzed under the multi-factor balancing test established in Penn Central v. New York. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with California, holding that the regulation was not a taking because it did not give union organizers the right to “unpredictably traverse their property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”
The Supreme Court reversed, stating that “a physical appropriation is a taking whether it is permanent or temporary.” The Court recognized its longstanding distinction between regulations that “appropriate” private property versus regulate the use of property. And the Court held that California’s regulation appropriates rather than regulates by granting union organizers “the right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking.”
The Court emphasized the deep roots of its categorical rule. Physical takings “are as old as the Republic” and “impose[ ] a clear and categorical obligation to provide the owner with just compensation.” And in this case, the Court recognized that the property right appropriated—the right to exclude—is “universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right.” Given the importance of that right, the Court was emphatic that California’s regulations here amounted to a per se taking.
By contrast, the dissent argued the regulation was just that, a regulation, not a physical appropriation of property. Writing for three dissenting justices, Justice Stephen Breyer distinguished the majority’s analysis by relying on a distinction between “permanent” physical invasions of property and “temporary” physical invasions. The dissent argued the latter are regulations, not per se takings, thus a “regulatory-balancing” approach, not an “absolute per se” rule, was warranted. And the dissent criticized the majority’s approach, warning it will produce more uncertainty for the lower courts than applying the Penn Central balancing test.
The majority rejected the dissent’s critique. As a matter of text, history, precedent, and common sense, the Court held that a physical invasion is a per se appropriation of property, not a use regulation. And it rejected the notion that a temporary physical invasion is distinct from a permanent physical invasion. “There is no reason the law should analyze an abrogation of the right to exclude in one manner if it extends for 365 days, but in an entirely different manner if it lasts for 364,” wrote the Chief Justice. The majority refused to accept the dissent’s position that “the right to exclude is an empty formality, subject to modification at the government’s pleasure.” In the Chief’s words, the right to exclude “cannot be balanced away.”
The majority concluded by clarifying its decision. First, trespasses are distinct from takings, and “are properly assessed as individual torts rather than appropriations of a property right.” Second, some physical invasions may not be takings if they are “consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights,” such as abating nuisances. Third, government can require property owners to cede a right of access in exchange for certain benefits. But the physical invasion authorized by California law fell under none of these recognized exceptions.
Ultimately, the majority’s holding was simple; physical appropriations of land are governed by a “per se rule: The government must pay for what it takes.” Although the dissent worries that the majority’s categorical rule will prove unworkable in the modern world, the majority responded that “the complexities of modern society . . . only reinforce the importance of safeguarding the basic property rights that help preserve individual liberty.” In their Cedar Point decision, the Court reaffirmed what John Adams recognized two centuries ago: “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.”
For more information and analysis of the decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid check out the Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum here.
=
| Delano grape strike | Delano grape strike | Delano grape strike | Delano grape strike |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | September 8, 1965 | September 8, 1965 | September 8, 1965 |
| Location | Delano, California | Delano, California | Delano, California |
| Goals | Minimum wage | Minimum wage | Minimum wage |
| Methods | Strikes, boycotting, Demonstrations | Strikes, boycotting, Demonstrations | Strikes, boycotting, Demonstrations |
| Resulted in | Collective bargaining agreement | Collective bargaining agreement | Collective bargaining agreement |
| Parties to the civil conflict | Parties to the civil conflict | Parties to the civil conflict | Parties to the civil conflict |
|
Agricultural Workers | |||
| Lead figures | Lead figures | Lead figures | Lead figures |
| Number | Number | Number | Number |
| 2,000 | |||
| Casualties | Casualties | Casualties | Casualties |
| Deaths:Injuries:Arrests: 250 | Deaths: 14 Injuries: 300 |
The Delano grape strike was a labor strike by the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee and the United Farm Workers against grape growers in California. The strike began on September 8, 1965, and lasted more than five years. Due largely to a consumer boycott of non-union grapes, the strike ended with a significant victory for the United Farm Workers as well as its first contract with the growers.
The strike began when the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, mostly Filipino farm workers in Delano, California, led by Philip Vera Cruz, Larry Itliong, Benjamin Gines and Pete Velasco, walked off the farms of area table-grape growers, demanding wages equal to the federal minimum wage.[1][2][3] One week after the strike began, the predominantly Mexican-American National Farmworkers Association, led by Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and Richard Chavez,[4] joined the strike, and eventually the two groups merged, forming the United Farm Workers of America in August 1966.[3] The strike rapidly spread to more than 2,000 workers.
Through its grassroots efforts—using consumer boycotts, marches, community organizing and nonviolent resistance—the movement gained national attention for the plight of some of the nation's lowest-paid workers.[2][3] By July 1970, the UFW had succeeded in reaching a collective bargaining agreement with the table-grape growers, affecting in excess of 10,000 farm workers.[1][2][3]
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Background}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Geography}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links}:
Background
...
==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Agricultural_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1975
The California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (CALRA), also referred to as the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975,[1] is a landmark[2] statute in US labor law enacted by the state of California which became law on June 4, 1975,[3] and which establishes collective bargaining for farmworkers in that state.[4]
The goal of the Act is to "ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations."[5] The Act, part of the California Labor Code, explicitly encourages and protects "the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."[6]
The Act established rules and authorized regulations similar to those of National Labor Relations Act, a federal law which formally protected the collective bargaining rights of most American workers except farm and domestic workers.[7] The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) administers the Act. The ALRB has two functions: To conduct, oversee, and certify representation elections, and to investigate unfair labor practice (ULP) charges and pursue remedies.[4] Administrative law judges and agency staff adjudicate most cases, with the five-member Board serving as a final arbiter.[4]
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Background}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Impetus for legal action}:
- :{2.1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{The Salad Bowl strike}:
- :{2.2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Worsening violence of the jurisdictional dispute}:
- :{2.3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{The Modesto march and the push for legislation}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Legislative history of CALRA}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Structure of the Act}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Implementation}:
- :{6:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Impact of the law}:
- :{7:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Efforts at revision}:
- :{8:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also}:
- :{9:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References}:
- :{10:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links}:
Background
Collective bargaining rights for most hourly workers in the United States were first given legal protection in 1933 by Section 7a of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). Although NIRA did not specifically exempt agricultural laborers from the protection of the Act, the Roosevelt administration—eager to win over farm-state members of Congress—argued that farmworkers were excluded.[2][8] When the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935, it, too, specifically exempted agricultural workers due to pressure from the "farm bloc" in Congress.[7][8][9] Although a number of attempts were made in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s to organize farm laborers, these efforts were unsuccessful.[10]
In August 1966, the National Farm Workers Association and Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, two unrecognized and relatively minor labor unions claiming to represent farm workers in California, merged to form the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (the predecessor organization to the United Farm Workers).[11] Adopting the philosophy of pacifism in the face of often violent reaction to its organizing efforts and engaging in strikes, hunger strikes, boycotts and secondary boycotts (including the particularly successful Delano grape strike), marches, rallies, and cutting-edge public relations campaigns, the United Farm Workers (UFW) began organizing large numbers of agricultural laborers into unions.[11] In some cases, the UFW even won recognition and negotiated contracts.[4][11]
Impetus for legal action
The Salad Bowl strike
Main article: Salad Bowl strike
A series of violent strikes and inter-union jurisdictional battles set the political stage for passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. By 1969, the UFW was on the verge of winning the four-year-old Delano grape strike.[11] But as the Delano grape strike seemed to be ending, an attempt by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to organize farm laborers in the Salinas Valley in California led to the costly "Salad Bowl strike."[12] Six thousand drivers and packing workers represented by the Teamsters struck on July 17, 1970, winning a contract on July 23 under which growers gave the Teamsters, not the UFW, access to farms and the right to organize workers into unions.[13][14][15] Secret talks between the UFW and the Teamsters led to an agreement to return jurisdiction over the field workers to the farm union,[13][16] but the agreement collapsed on August 23 and 7,000 UFW workers struck the Salinas Valley growers.[17] Violence, sporadic at first but increasingly widespread, began to occur in the fields.[18] On December 4, federal marshals arrested and jailed Chávez.[19] Two days later, an anti-union mob nearly rioted when former Olympic gold medal-winning decathlete Rafer Johnson and Ethel Kennedy, widow of slain Senator Robert F. Kennedy visited Chávez in jail.[11]The two unions signed a new jurisdictional agreement reaffirming the UFW's right to organize field workers,[20]
Worsening violence of the jurisdictional dispute:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:
The Teamsters resumed their dispute with the UFW in December 1972, which led to further extensive disruptions in the state agricultural industry, mass picketing, mass arrests, and extensive violence.[4][21][22] Many growers signed contracts with the Teamsters on April 15, and thousands of UFW members began picketing in the fields.[23] Mass arrests jailed more than 1,700 UFW members by late July (some county jails had three times the number of detainees they were legally capable of holding),[24] and UFW members accused law enforcement officers of beating detainees.[25] Soon organizing battles between the two unions became violent. "Flying squads" of Teamsters began attacking UFW supporters in broad daylight in the Coachella Valley.[11][26] The violence worsened when the dispute moved into the Delano vineyards. Seventy farm workers were attacked on July 31, a UFW picketer was shot on August 3, five firebombs were thrown at UFW picket lines on August 9, two UFW members were shot on August 11, and a UFW picketer was shot to death on August 16.[27] Finally, a tentative agreement was reached on September 27, 1973; the Teamsters again agreed to leave jurisdiction over farm field workers to the UFW.[28][29]
The new agreement did not last long. On November 7, just 41 days later, the Teamsters union said it would not repudiate the contracts it had signed.[30] But the UFW now had too few resources and membership to do much about it.[4][21][31] The UFW deployed its best strategic weapon, the boycott, and kept up the push for a national boycott of grapes, wine and lettuce.[32] The Teamsters reiterated their pledge to uphold their contracts in November.[33]
By late 1974, many observers concluded that the UFW was no longer a viable force. It called a few small strikes, defied court injunctions to stop picketing, and continued pushing its national boycotts. [34] But in July, it was forced to end picketing at some grape fields near Delano.[35] The Teamsters were in no better position to win organizing battles. It had opened a major organizing drive in March 1974 [36] and established a regional farm workers' local in June,[37] but the effort was in chaos by November.[38] Newspaper columnists, however, began wondering in June whether the UFW had any capacity to fight, and by February 1975 had concluded the union had no future.[39]
The Modesto march and the push for legislation:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:
The ongoing fight between the Teamsters and UFW and its effect on UFW's organizational viability led César Chávez to seriously consider legal reform as a solution to his union's problems.[11][40] Chávez had rejected legislative solutions in the past by arguing that a truly successful union movement must be built from the ground up rather than rely on top-down activity.[11][40] But Chávez began to reconsider this stand in light of the attacks by the Teamsters. Additionally, the time seemed right for a legislative program: Jerry Brown, long an avid supporter of the UFW, had been elected Governor of California in November 1974.[11] Brown had even hired LeRoy Chatfield, a former high-level UFW staffer, as one of his key aides.[11][40]
Once in office, however, Brown's support for the UFW cooled.[11][40] The UFW knew it had to make a strong political showing in order to push Brown and the California State Legislature to act.[11][40][41]
The UFW considered more mass picketing, more rallies, and more boycotts, but the union was worried that it had lost the support of farm workers and the public and that such events would point out the weakness of the union rather than its strength.[11] Instead, the UFW settled on a 110-mile (180 km) march by a small group of UFW leaders from San Francisco to the E & J Gallo Winery in Modesto.[11] The organizers envisioned a small but dramatic march that would not require large numbers of participants. Just a few hundred marchers left San Francisco on February 22, 1975.[40][41][42] But more than 15,000 people joined them en route by the time they reached Modesto on March 1.[40][41][43]
The spontaneous, spectacular success of the Modesto march garnered significant media attention, and proved that the UFW still had the support of farm workers.[11][40][41]
Legislative history of CALRA
The dramatic success of the Modesto march energized the farm labor movement in California. Governor Brown quickly began pushing for labor law reform. Grower resistance never emerged, as many employers were reluctant to continue the fight against the UFW. "The grape boycott scared the heck out of the farmers, all of us," said one major grower, and employers did not want another UFW boycott.[11][21][40][41][44]
Previous legislative efforts[
Several previous efforts to enact legislation protecting collective bargaining rights for farm workers had emerged in California between 1969 and 1975, but all had failed. César Chávez had briefly supported labor law reform in California in April 1969,[45] and Conservative Republican State Senator George Murphy had sponsored a bill backed by Republicans and growers the same year to guarantee the right to organize, imposed secret-ballot elections, and restricted right to strike and to engage in boycotts.[46] But the Murphy bill, as well as a less restrictive bill in the State Assembly, died.[47] Murphy introduced an even more restrictive bill in 1970, but that too failed.[48]
The first positive sign for labor law reform came in 1971. An association of major growers agreed to support legislation which provided for recognition of farm worker unions in January 1971.[49] The State Senate narrowly approved a bill opposed by the UFW, but the Assembly killed the measure.[50] Based on the support for the growers in the State Senate, the growers backed a ballot measure, Proposition 22, which would have guaranteed the right to organize but placed heavy restrictions on the right to strike, boycott, and picket.[51] Then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued to have Proposition 22 removed from the ballot amid allegations of signature fraud on the approving petition, violation of child labor laws (children as young as six years old were alleged to have been paid to collect signatures), and bribery.[52] The measure went down to defeat.[53]
The next legislative push came in 1973. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest association of farmers and a representative of many California growers, proposed amending the federal National Labor Relations Act to permit agricultural workers to organize.[54] The change led California Governor Ronald Reagan to introduce a bill in the California state legislature that would permit agricultural field workers to unionize under secret ballot elections as well as ban secondary boycotts.[55] But the state Assembly did not pass the bill.[56] However, California's then-Secretary of State, Jerry Brown—declaring that a "bloody civil war" existed in the Central Valley—came out in favor of a legislative solution in August 1973.[57] Brown, a longtime labor attorney who had met César Chávez in 1968 and long supported the UFW and helped introduce UFW leaders to Hollywood stars, directors, and studio heads in order to help the union win critical support in the entertainment industry.[11]
Brown's public support and his impending run for governor (which was widely anticipated) led Chávez to make a stronger push for labor law reform in 1974. Chávez and John F. Henning, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation (the state body of the AFL-CIO, wrote the bill and first-term Chicano Assemblyman Richard Alatorre (D-Los Angeles) introduced the bill.[11][40][58] But Governor Ronald Reagan led opposition which killed the bill.[59]
Passage[
Jerry Brown's election as governor significantly improved the chances of passing a bill in 1975.[60] Two of the 26 paragraphs of Brown's inaugural address were devoted to the need for farm labor legislation, Assembly Speaker Leo T. McCarthy voiced his support for the legislation.[61]
The bill which would eventually become CALRA was introduced in both chambers of the state legislature on April 10, 1975.[62] Top UFW staff member Dolores Huerta acted as the farm worker union's chief lobbyist.[63]With McCarthy, some growers, and the UFW behind the bill, a key State Senate committee approved the bill on May 7.[64] Key labor unions (including the Teamsters), arguing that card check rather than secret ballot elections should be the bill's preferred method of resolving unionization disputes, opposed the bill.[65] Nonetheless, a key State Assembly committee approved it on May 12, despite attempts by some Teamster members to intimidate legislators into opposing the bill.[66] The opposition was countered by the UFW, which held rallies to support the bill, and agreement was reached on May 19 on a compromise bill.[67]
By that time, however, the deadline for passing a bill out of its chamber of origination had passed, and Governor Brown was forced to call a special session of the legislature to pass the farm labor bill.[68] A Senate committee approved the bill on May 21, the full Senate passed the bill on May 26, two Assembly committees reported the bill on May 27, and the Assembly passed the bill and set it to Governor Brown for his signature on May 29.[69] Just 50 calendar days were needed to pass the bill. Governor Brown signed the legislation into law on June 4, 1975.[3]
...
==
omg grover
https://www.atr.org/tags/california-agricultural-labor-relations-act
9/14 karthch sp
oday the Center for Worker Freedom (CWF) launched the first in a series of billboards in Sacramento designed to bring attention toFresno farm workers who are being forced into a union against their will.
Workers at Fresno-based Gerawan Farming voted last November in a decertification election to rid their workplace of the United Farm Workers (UFW). Union bosses at the UFW are trying to take three percent of the workers’ hard-earned pay, despite the fact that the union has negotiated no wages or working conditions for the workers in over twenty years.
But the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) is refusing to count the votes from last fall’s decertification election in an outrageous violation of the Gerawan workers’ constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly.
Writing forForbes on Labor Day, CWF Executive Director Matt Patterson notes that the California Governor has a unique responsibility - and opportunity - in the Gerawan situation:
:{
}:
For Governor Jerry Brown, who can make the ALRB count the votes, there is an opportunity to restore faith in our democracy to those who have come here seeking its protections.
The CWF digital boards are located on the West side of I-5, just South of Richards Blvd (facing South) and on US 50 half a mile West of Howe Ave (facing East) in Sacramento. They will rotate a variety of messages through September designed to alert Governor Jerry Brown to the plight of the Gerawan workers, while urging him to help them get their votes counted.
The first message (pictured below) shows Silvia Lopez, a Gerawan farm worker, with tape over her mouth labeled “ALRB” and reads: “Freedom of Speech Includes Fresno Farm Workers.”
...
==
omfg
no lnx
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-107.html
No. 20-107
Title: Cedar Point Nursery, et al., Petitioners
v.
Victoria Hassid, et al.
Docketed: August 3, 2020
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Numbers: (16-16321)
Decision Date: May 8, 2019
Rehearing Denied: April 29, 2020
Questions Presented
DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Jul 29 2020 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 2, 2020)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Aug 06 2020 Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cedar Point Nursery, et al.
Blanket Consent
Aug 18 2020 Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 2, 2020 to October 2, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Main Document
Aug 19 2020 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 2, 2020.
Aug 27 2020 Brief amicus curiae of California Farm Bureau Federation filed.
Certificate of Word CountMain DocumentProof of Service
Aug 31 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Pelican Institutefor Public Policy filed.
Sep 02 2020 Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed.
Sep 02 2020 Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Sep 02 2020 Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation filed.
nt
Sep 02 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.koch etc bogus
Sep 02 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 02 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 02 2020 Brief of respondents Victoria Hassid, et al. in opposition filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Oct 15 2020 Reply of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Oct 21 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
Nov 09 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
Nov 13 2020 Petition GRANTED.
Nov 24 2020 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al.
Main Document
Dec 02 2020 Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Cedar Point Nursery, et al.
Blanket Consent
Dec 07 2020 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.
Dec 28 2020 Motion for an extension of time filed.
Main Document
Dec 28 2020 Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including December 31, 2020.
Dec 30 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Pelican Institute for Public Policy filed.
Certificate of Word CountProof of ServiceMain Document
Dec 31 2020 Brief of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Dec 31 2020 Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 05 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 06 2021 Amicus brief of New England Legal Foundation not accepted for filing. (January 06, 2021)
Jan 06 2021 Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Jan 06 2021 Brief amicus curiae of California Farm Bureau Federation filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 06 2021 Brief amici curiae of Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Jan 06 2021 Amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation not accepted for filing. (February 04, 2021 - Corrected brief filed.)
Jan 06 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Main Document
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United Statesof America filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Proof of ServiceMain Document
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. in support of neither party filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae ofCenter for Constitutional Jurisprudencefiled.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 07 2021 Brief amicus curiae ofLiberty Justice Centerfiled.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Jan 21 2021 Motion for an extension of time filed by responents.
Main Document
Jan 22 2021 Motion to extend the time to file respondents' brief on the merits is granted and the time is extended to and including February 5, 2021.
Feb 01 2021 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 22, 2021.
Feb 04 2021 Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Feb 04 2021 Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.
Feb 05 2021 Brief of respondents Victoria Hassid, et al. filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Feb 10 2021 Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project, et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 11 2021 Brief amici curiae of United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 filed.
Certificate of Word CountProof of ServiceMain Document
Feb 11 2021 Amicus brief of Property Law Professors not accepted for filing. (February 19, 2021)
Feb 11 2021 Brief amici curiae of Property Law Professorsfiled.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 11 2021 Amicus brief of United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 not accepted for filing. (March 10, 2021)
Feb 12 2021 Letter from the Acting Solicitor General notifying the Court of the United States' change in position from that presented in its amicus curiae brief filed on January 7, 2021 filed. (Distributed)
Main Document
Feb 12 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizationsfiled.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae of Legal Historians filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amicus curiae of United Farm Workers of America filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae ofCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance,Inc., et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amicus curiae of Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla filed. (Corrected brief to be filed)
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae of Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, et al. filed (Feb. 22, 2021).
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae of International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), et al. filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae of Commonwealth of Virginia,et al. filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 12 2021 Brief amici curiae of Local Governments filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Feb 22 2021 CIRCULATED.
Mar 05 2021 Reply of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Mar 22 2021 Argued. For petitioners: Joshua P. Thompson, Sacramento, Cal. For respondents: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal.
Jun 23 2021 Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined.Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Attorneys for Petitioners
Joshua Paul Thompson
Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
jthompson@pacificlegal.org 9164197111
Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al.
Wencong Fa Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
wfa@pacificlegal.org (916) 419-7111
Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al.
Attorneys for Respondents
Joshua Patashnik
Counsel of Record California Department of Justice
455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
josh.patashnik@doj.ca.gov 415-510-3896
Party name: Victoria Hassid, et al.
Other
Sarah Elizabeth Roy Harbison
Counsel of Record Pelican Instititue for Public Policy
400 Poydras St., Suite 900
New Orleans, LA 70130
sarah@pelicaninstitute.org 5049528016
Party name: Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Counsel of Record Acting Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov 202-514-2217
Party name: United States
Paul J. Beard II
Counsel of Record FisherBroyles LLP
4470 W. Sunset Blvd.
Suite 93165
Los Angeles, CA 90027
paul.beard@fisherbroyles.com 818-216-3988
Party name: American Farm Bureau Federation
Michael M. Berger
Counsel of Record MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park East
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
mmberger@manatt.com (310) 312-4185
Party name: Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association
Carl Gale Borden
Counsel of Record 2600 River Plaza Dr
Sacramento, CA 95833
cborden@cfbf.com 9165615659
Party name: California Farm Bureau Federation
Anthony Thomas Caso
Counsel of Record Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
caso@chapman.edu 877-855-3330
Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Bryan Gregg Cleveland
Counsel of Record Oklahoma Attorney General's Office
313 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
bryan.cleveland@oag.ok.gov (405) 521-3921
Party name: State of Oklahoma, et al.
Cynthia Fleming Crawford
Counsel of Record Americans for Prosperity Foundation
1310 N. Courthouse Road
7th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201
ccrawford@afphq.org 5713292227
Party name: Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Leon Dayan
Counsel of Record Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC
805 15th Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
ldayan@bredhoff.com 202-842-2600
Party name: Service Employees International Union
John D. Echeverria
Counsel of Record Vermont Law School
164 Chelsea Street
P.O Box 96
South Royalton, VT 05068
jecheverria@vermontlaw.edu 8028311386
Party name: Property Law Professors
Matthew James Ginsburg
Counsel of Record American Fed. of Labor and Congress of Industrial
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
mginsburg@aflcio.org 202-637-5397
Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
Brianne Jenna Gorod
Counsel of Record Constitutional Accountability Center
1200 18th Street, NW
Suite 501
Washington, DC 20036
brianne@theusconstitution.org 202 296 6889
Party name: Constitutional Accountability Center
Toby Jay Heytens
Counsel of Record Office of the Attorney General
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
SolicitorGeneral@oag.state.va.us (804) 786-7240
Party name: Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.
Steffen Nathanael Johnson
Counsel of Record Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
sjohnson@wsgr.com (202) 973-8888
Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Matthew Littleton
Counsel of Record Donahue, Goldberg, Weaver & Littleton
1008 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
matt@donahuegoldberg.com 2026836895
Party name: National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Government Finance Officers Association
Katharine Minkel Mapes
Counsel of Record Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP
1875 Eye Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Katharine.mapes@spiegelmcd.com 202-879-4000
Party name: Legal Historians
Mario Martinez
Counsel of Record Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, A Professional Law Corporation
P.O. Box 1998
Bakersfield, CA 93303
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com 661-859-1174
Party name: United Farm Workers of America
Thomas Ryan McCarthy
Counsel of Record Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
tom@consovoymccarthy.com 7032439423
Party name: The Buckeye Institute
Veronica Melendez Lopez
Counsel of Record California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
2210 K Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA 95816
vmelendez@crlaf.org (916) 446-7904
Party name: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Justice, and California Catholic Conference
Jonathan B. Miller
Counsel of Record Public Rights Project
4096 Piedmont Avenue, #149
Oakland, CA 94612
jon@publicrightsproject.org 6468316113
Party name: Local Governments
Jeanne Ellen Mirer
Counsel of Record 1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jmirer@mmsjlaw.com 2122312235
Party name: International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), International Commission For Labor Rights (ICLR), Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILR) and Cornell Labor Law Clinic
John Pagliaro
Counsel of Record The New England Legal Foundation
150 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
johnpagliaro@nelfonline.org 617-695-3660
Party name: New England Legal Foundation
Jeffrey Hallett Redfern
Counsel of Record Institute for Justice
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
jredfern@ij.org 6123081084
Party name: Institute for Justice
Glenn Ellis Rothner
Counsel of Record Rothner, Segall and Greenstone
510 South Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
grothner@rsglabor.com (626) 796-7555
Party name: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla
Catherine Kiley Ruckelshaus
Counsel of Record National Employment Law Project
90 Broad Street
Suite 1100
New York, NY 10004
cruckelshaus@nelp.org 6466938221
Party name: National Employment Law Project, et al.
Jeffrey Michael Schwab
Counsel of Record Liberty Justice Center
208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1690
Chicago, IL 60604
jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org 312-637-2280
Party name: Liberty Justice Center
Ilya Shapiro
Counsel of Record Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
ishapiro@cato.org 2028420200
Party name: The Cato Institute
Robert H. Thomas
Counsel of Record Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
1003 Bishop Street
1600 Pauahi Tower
Honolulu, HI 96813-0000
rht@hawaiilawyer.com 808-531-8031
Party name: Southeastern Legal Foundation
Henry M. Willis
Counsel of Record Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers
6300 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90048
hmw@ssdslaw.com 3236554700
Party name: United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7
Cristen Alice Wohlgemuth
Counsel of Record Mountain States Legal Foundation
2596 S. Lewis Way
Lakewood, CO 80227
cristen@mslegal.org 3032922021
Party name: Mountain States Legal Foundation
===
links
| DATE | PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS |
|---|---|
| Jul 29 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 2, 2020) |
| PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Aug 06 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cedar Point Nursery, et al. |
| Blanket Consent | |
| Aug 18 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 2, 2020 to October 2, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
| Main Document | |
| Aug 19 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 2, 2020. |
| Aug 27 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of California Farm Bureau Federation filed. |
| Certificate of Word CountMain DocumentProof of Service | |
| Aug 31 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Pelican Institute for Public Policy filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Sep 02 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Oct 02 2020 | Brief of respondents Victoria Hassid, et al. in opposition filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Oct 15 2020 | Reply of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Oct 21 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020. |
| Nov 09 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020. |
| Nov 13 2020 | Petition GRANTED. |
| Nov 24 2020 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. |
| Main Document | |
| Dec 02 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Cedar Point Nursery, et al. |
| Blanket Consent | |
| Dec 07 2020 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
| Dec 28 2020 | Motion for an extension of time filed. |
| Main Document | |
| Dec 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including December 31, 2020. |
| Dec 30 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Pelican Institute for Public Policy filed. |
| Certificate of Word CountProof of ServiceMain Document | |
| Dec 31 2020 | Brief of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Dec 31 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 05 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 06 2021 | Amicus brief of New England Legal Foundation not accepted for filing. (January 06, 2021) |
| Jan 06 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Jan 06 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of California Farm Bureau Federation filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 06 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Jan 06 2021 | Amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation not accepted for filing. (February 04, 2021 - Corrected brief filed.) |
| Jan 06 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed. |
| Main Document | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
| Proof of ServiceMain Document | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. in support of neither party filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Oklahoma, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Jan 21 2021 | Motion for an extension of time filed by responents. |
| Main Document | |
| Jan 22 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file respondents' brief on the merits is granted and the time is extended to and including February 5, 2021. |
| Feb 01 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 22, 2021. |
| Feb 04 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. |
| Feb 04 2021 | Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. |
| Feb 05 2021 | Brief of respondents Victoria Hassid, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Feb 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 filed. |
| Certificate of Word CountProof of ServiceMain Document | |
| Feb 11 2021 | Amicus brief of Property Law Professors not accepted for filing. (February 19, 2021) |
| Feb 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Property Law Professors filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 11 2021 | Amicus brief of United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 not accepted for filing. (March 10, 2021) |
| Feb 12 2021 | Letter from the Acting Solicitor General notifying the Court of the United States' change in position from that presented in its amicus curiae brief filed on January 7, 2021 filed. (Distributed) |
| Main Document | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Legal Historians filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United Farm Workers of America filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla filed. (Corrected brief to be filed) |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, et al. filed (Feb. 22, 2021). |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 12 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Local Governments filed. |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Feb 22 2021 | CIRCULATED. |
| Mar 05 2021 | Reply of petitioners Cedar Point Nursery, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | |
| Mar 22 2021 | Argued. For petitioners: Joshua P. Thompson, Sacramento, Cal. For respondents: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal. |
| Jun 23 2021 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. |
:{
| NAME | ADDRESS | PHONE |
|---|---|---|
| Attorneys for Petitioners | Attorneys for Petitioners | Attorneys for Petitioners |
Joshua Paul Thompson Counsel of Record | Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 jthompson@pacificlegal.org | 9164197111 |
| Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. | Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. | Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. |
| Wencong Fa | Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 wfa@pacificlegal.org | (916) 419-7111 |
| Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. | Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. | Party name: Cedar Point Nursery, et al. |
| Attorneys for Respondents | Attorneys for Respondents | Attorneys for Respondents |
Joshua Patashnik Counsel of Record | California Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 josh.patashnik@doj.ca.gov | 415-510-3896 |
| Party name: Victoria Hassid, et al. | Party name: Victoria Hassid, et al. | Party name: Victoria Hassid, et al. |
| Other | Other | Other |
Sarah Elizabeth Roy Harbison Counsel of Record | Pelican Instititue for Public Policy 400 Poydras St., Suite 900 New Orleans, LA 70130 sarah@pelicaninstitute.org | 5049528016 |
| Party name: Pelican Institute for Public Policy | Party name: Pelican Institute for Public Policy | Party name: Pelican Institute for Public Policy |
Elizabeth B. Prelogar Counsel of Record | Acting Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov | 202-514-2217 |
| Party name: United States | Party name: United States | Party name: United States |
Paul J. Beard II Counsel of Record | FisherBroyles LLP 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. Suite 93165 Los Angeles, CA 90027 paul.beard@fisherbroyles.com | 818-216-3988 |
| Party name: American Farm Bureau Federation | Party name: American Farm Bureau Federation | Party name: American Farm Bureau Federation |
Michael M. Berger Counsel of Record | MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 mmberger@manatt.com | (310) 312-4185 |
| Party name: Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association | Party name: Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association | Party name: Western Growers Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; and Ventura County Agricultural Association |
Carl Gale Borden Counsel of Record | 2600 River Plaza Dr Sacramento, CA 95833 cborden@cfbf.com | 9165615659 |
| Party name: California Farm Bureau Federation | Party name: California Farm Bureau Federation | Party name: California Farm Bureau Federation |
Anthony Thomas Caso Counsel of Record | Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence One University Drive Orange, CA 92866 caso@chapman.edu | 877-855-3330 |
| Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence | Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence | Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence |
Bryan Gregg Cleveland Counsel of Record | Oklahoma Attorney General's Office 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 bryan.cleveland@oag.ok.gov | (405) 521-3921 |
| Party name: State of Oklahoma, et al. | Party name: State of Oklahoma, et al. | Party name: State of Oklahoma, et al. |
Cynthia Fleming Crawford Counsel of Record | Americans for Prosperity Foundation 1310 N. Courthouse Road 7th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 ccrawford@afphq.org | 5713292227 |
| Party name: Americans for Prosperity Foundation | Party name: Americans for Prosperity Foundation | Party name: Americans for Prosperity Foundation |
Leon Dayan Counsel of Record | Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC 805 15th Street NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ldayan@bredhoff.com | 202-842-2600 |
| Party name: Service Employees International Union | Party name: Service Employees International Union | Party name: Service Employees International Union |
John D. Echeverria Counsel of Record | Vermont Law School 164 Chelsea Street P.O Box 96 South Royalton, VT 05068 jecheverria@vermontlaw.edu | 8028311386 |
| Party name: Property Law Professors | Party name: Property Law Professors | Party name: Property Law Professors |
Matthew James Ginsburg Counsel of Record | American Fed. of Labor and Congress of Industrial 815 16th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20006 mginsburg@aflcio.org | 202-637-5397 |
| Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations | Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations | Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations |
Brianne Jenna Gorod Counsel of Record | Constitutional Accountability Center 1200 18th Street, NW Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036 brianne@theusconstitution.org | 202 296 6889 |
| Party name: Constitutional Accountability Center | Party name: Constitutional Accountability Center | Party name: Constitutional Accountability Center |
Toby Jay Heytens Counsel of Record | Office of the Attorney General 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 SolicitorGeneral@oag.state.va.us | (804) 786-7240 |
| Party name: Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. | Party name: Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. | Party name: Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. |
Steffen Nathanael Johnson Counsel of Record | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20006 sjohnson@wsgr.com | (202) 973-8888 |
| Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America | Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America | Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America |
Matthew Littleton Counsel of Record | Donahue, Goldberg, Weaver & Littleton 1008 Pennsylvania Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 matt@donahuegoldberg.com | 2026836895 |
| Party name: National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Government Finance Officers Association | Party name: National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Government Finance Officers Association | Party name: National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Government Finance Officers Association |
Katharine Minkel Mapes Counsel of Record | Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Katharine.mapes@spiegelmcd.com | 202-879-4000 |
| Party name: Legal Historians | Party name: Legal Historians | Party name: Legal Historians |
Mario Martinez Counsel of Record | Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, A Professional Law Corporation P.O. Box 1998 Bakersfield, CA 93303 mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com | 661-859-1174 |
| Party name: United Farm Workers of America | Party name: United Farm Workers of America | Party name: United Farm Workers of America |
Thomas Ryan McCarthy Counsel of Record | Consovoy McCarthy PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 tom@consovoymccarthy.com | 7032439423 |
| Party name: The Buckeye Institute | Party name: The Buckeye Institute | Party name: The Buckeye Institute |
Veronica Melendez Lopez Counsel of Record | California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 2210 K Street, Suite 201 Sacramento, CA 95816 vmelendez@crlaf.org | (916) 446-7904 |
| Party name: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Justice, and California Catholic Conference | Party name: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Justice, and California Catholic Conference | Party name: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Farmworker Justice, and California Catholic Conference |
Jonathan B. Miller Counsel of Record | Public Rights Project 4096 Piedmont Avenue, #149 Oakland, CA 94612 jon@publicrightsproject.org | 6468316113 |
| Party name: Local Governments | Party name: Local Governments | Party name: Local Governments |
Jeanne Ellen Mirer Counsel of Record | 1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10004 jmirer@mmsjlaw.com | 2122312235 |
| Party name: International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), International Commission For Labor Rights (ICLR), Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILR) and Cornell Labor Law Clinic | Party name: International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), International Commission For Labor Rights (ICLR), Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILR) and Cornell Labor Law Clinic | Party name: International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW), International Commission For Labor Rights (ICLR), Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILR) and Cornell Labor Law Clinic |
John Pagliaro Counsel of Record | The New England Legal Foundation 150 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 johnpagliaro@nelfonline.org | 617-695-3660 |
| Party name: New England Legal Foundation | Party name: New England Legal Foundation | Party name: New England Legal Foundation |
Jeffrey Hallett Redfern Counsel of Record | Institute for Justice 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 jredfern@ij.org | 6123081084 |
| Party name: Institute for Justice | Party name: Institute for Justice | Party name: Institute for Justice |
Glenn Ellis Rothner Counsel of Record | Rothner, Segall and Greenstone 510 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 grothner@rsglabor.com | (626) 796-7555 |
| Party name: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla | Party name: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla | Party name: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Alex Padilla |
Catherine Kiley Ruckelshaus Counsel of Record | National Employment Law Project 90 Broad Street Suite 1100 New York, NY 10004 cruckelshaus@nelp.org | 6466938221 |
| Party name: National Employment Law Project, et al. | Party name: National Employment Law Project, et al. | Party name: National Employment Law Project, et al. |
Jeffrey Michael Schwab Counsel of Record | Liberty Justice Center 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1690 Chicago, IL 60604 jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org | 312-637-2280 |
| Party name: Liberty Justice Center | Party name: Liberty Justice Center | Party name: Liberty Justice Center |
Ilya Shapiro Counsel of Record | Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 ishapiro@cato.org | 2028420200 |
| Party name: The Cato Institute | Party name: The Cato Institute | Party name: The Cato Institute |
Robert H. Thomas Counsel of Record | Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert 1003 Bishop Street 1600 Pauahi Tower Honolulu, HI 96813-0000 rht@hawaiilawyer.com | 808-531-8031 |
| Party name: Southeastern Legal Foundation | Party name: Southeastern Legal Foundation | Party name: Southeastern Legal Foundation |
Henry M. Willis Counsel of Record | Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers 6300 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90048 hmw@ssdslaw.com | 3236554700 |
| Party name: United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 | Party name: United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 | Party name: United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and Teamsters Joint Council 7 |
Cristen Alice Wohlgemuth Counsel of Record | Mountain States Legal Foundation 2596 S. Lewis Way Lakewood, CO 80227 cristen@mslegal.org | 3032922021 |
| Party name: Mountain States Legal Foundation | Party name: Mountain States Legal Foundation | Party name: Mountain States Legal Foundation |
}: