Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (Docket 20–107) is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Background.
The dispute arises 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 authority of a regulation first finalized in 1975 under the California Agricultural Labor Relations 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 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. 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 on behalf of 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.
The basic issue before the justices was whether the union organizer visits to the petitioners' facilities is a physical 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". 
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 22, 2021. Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Co. were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.