LegaL historians

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">y mail 5 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">scotus ~ appeal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Here is a look into the letter to the UN signed by<b> 16 prominent lawyers, including Natali Segovia, Marty Garbus, Michael Tigar, Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard, Ron Kuby, Nadine Strossen:</b></span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none !important;" /><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none !important;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none !important;"><span style="outline: none !important;">“To this day, Mr. Donziger and his family, including his wife Laura Miller and 16-year-old son Matthew, live under the constant threat of further contempt charges that could be levied by Judge Kaplan, the conflicted presiding judge who continues to maintain he has the legal authority to appoint Chevron to prosecute Mr. Donziger directly. Mr. Donziger and his family live with the knowledge that the same forces that have worked for years to destroy them could decide to launch even further attacks to try to silence Mr. Donziger for good. To combat such an injustice and to comply with the Opinion, the United States government (through President Biden) should exercise its pardon power to void Mr. Donziger’s conviction.”</span></span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">46 pp</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CEDAR POINT NURSERY AND FOWLER PACKING

COMPANY, INC., Petitioners,

VICTORIA HASSID, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIR

OF THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, ET AL., Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF LEGAL HISTORIANS AS AMICI

CURIAE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

BETHANY R. BERGER

University of Connecticut

School of Law

65 Elizabeth Street

Hartford, CT 06105

Bethany.Berger@uconn.edu

February 12, 2021

KATHARINE M. MAPES *

GWENDOLYN A. HICKS

*Counsel of Record

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP

1875 Eye Street., NW,

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 879-4000

Katharine.Mapes@spiegelmcd.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1

The undersigned are law professors who

research and write in legal history. We are

concerned that advocates in the past have presented

this Court with a misleading account of early English

and American property law. We write to provide the

Court with a more complete history of the rights to

exclude and enter private land.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

An absolute right to exclude has never existed

in Anglo-American law. Early American law and its

English precedents authorized the public and

governmental officials to enter private property for

multiple purposes. These non-trespassory entries

are not limited to those that might incur public

harms but reflect a general sense of societal

interests. When owners challenged these measures,

courts repeatedly held that they were neither

trespasses nor violations of constitutional

guarantees. To hold that California’s narrowly

tailored statute to protect farmworker rights is a

taking would both violate this Court’s precedent and

“freeze the common law” of trespass in violation of

the Anglo-American tradition. Pruneyard Shopping

Ctr. v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 93 (1980) (Marshall, J.,

concurring).

English common law recognized a wide variety

of situations in which individuals, the public,...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Limited rights to enter are part of the

American tradition of property. The opinion below

should be affirmed. </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Respectfully submitted,