Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Property

594 U.S. 139 (2021)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakings ClausePhysical TakingsRight to Excludeper se physical takingeasementaccess regulationphysical appropriation

Facts

A California regulation granted labor organizations a right to enter agricultural employers' property to meet with workers and solicit support for unionization. The regulation allowed organizers onto the property for up to one hour before work, one hour during lunch, and one hour after work, for up to four 30-day periods each year. Union organizers entered Cedar Point's property without prior notice and attempted to enter Fowler Packing's property, leading to labor charges and the growers' suit. The growers alleged that the regulation appropriated their right to exclude by granting union organizers a right of access to their land without compensation.

Issue

Does a California regulation that grants union organizers a right to enter agricultural employers' private property for limited periods constitute a per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Or is it merely a use restriction evaluated under Penn Central?

Rule

When government action physically appropriates private property or a right to physically invade private property for itself or third parties, a per se physical taking has occurred and the government must pay just compensation. This rule applies even when the appropriation is created by regulation and even when the access is limited in time; Penn Central applies to restrictions on an owner's use of property, not to physical appropriations of the owner's right to exclude.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada adopts a regulation requiring owners of closed private vineyards near Reno to admit state-certified wildfire researchers onto their land for up to four afternoons each summer to place heat sensors and record conditions. The owners receive no compensation, and refusal triggers civil penalties.

If a vineyard owner challenges the regulation under the Takings Clause, which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when the government physically appropriates property or a right to physically invade property for itself or third parties, a per se physical taking occurs. That rule applies even when the appropriation is created by regulation rather than eminent domain, and even when access is limited in duration. Penn Central applies to restrictions on the owner's use of property, not to government-authorized appropriations of the right to exclude.