EDITORIAL: Court stops state-authorized ‘invasions’ of property

Property rights received a much-needed boost this week in a closely watched Supreme Court case involving California farmers and labor organizers. The decision could have ramifications for other government-sanctioned incursions on land owners.

In a 6-3 ruling the court held that the state cannot force growers to open their property to union activists seeking to organize workers. While the case involved a pair of labor-management disputes, the ruling at its core is about the deeper issue of protecting the essential right to private property.

The origins of the dispute date to the 1970s, when California passed legislation allowing “organizers to access farmer property a maximum of three hours a day, 120 days a year, in order to speak with their employees and drum up support for unionization,” Cal Matters reports.

On Oct. 29, 2015, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the growers, “dozens of union activists trespassed on Cedar Point Nursery’s property to recruit union members. They waved flags, shouted over bullhorns, intimidated the nursery’s staff and disrupted the workday. When the nursery’s owner ... Mike Fahner found out the action was legal in California, he decided to fight what he believed was an unconstitutional law.”

Mr. Fahner along with the owners of Fowler Packing Company argued that the regulation limited their right to control their own property and amounted to a Fifth Amendment taking. They also noted that labor organizers, thanks to technological advancements, today have many other ways to contact or interact with workers that don’t involve infringing on the rights of others.

The majority agreed. “The regulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties the owners’ right to exclude,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Government authorized invasions of property — whether by plane, boat, cable or beachcomber — are physical takings requiring just compensation.”

The court’s three liberals disagreed, contending that the law was a reasonable attempt to “regulate” the rights of land owners in the “best interests” of the public. But this case didn’t involve a restaurant or retail store or any other “public accommodation.” In a free society, we would maintain, the public’s best interest is to recognize and protect property rights.

The ruling “affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property,” said Justin Thompson, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation. That’s good news.

Workers certainly have the right of free association when it comes to union membership. But laws that prevent private owners from restricting access to their own land without compensating them for the inconvenience undermine the very concept of private property. The justices got this one right.