The sweeping implications of the Supreme Court's new union-busting case

[DonViejo]

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid isn’t just an attack on unions, it could bar health inspectors from inspecting restaurants.

By Ian Millhiser Mar 15, 2021, 8:30am EDT

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which the Supreme Court will hear next Monday, March 22, targets a nearly half-century-old regulation in California that permits union organizers to briefly enter agricultural worksites and speak to farmworkers. But the stakes in this case go far beyond union busting.

The plaintiffs in Cedar Point ask the justices to so radically reshape the Court’s approach to property rights that some of the most basic state and federal health and safety laws could fall. Among other things, if the Court accepts the plaintiffs’ argument that farm owners have a constitutional right to kick union organizers off their property, it could also mean that restaurants have a constitutional right to keep health inspectors from entering their kitchens, or that factory owners can prohibit the government from inspecting their machines to make sure those machines are safe to operate.

Cedar Point is one of the most radical property rights cases to reach the justices in a long time. And its plaintiffs ask for a significant reshaping of the American social contract.

The case arises out of the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause,” which provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The plaintiffs claim that this clause gives them a broad “right to exclude unwanted persons from private property,” and that this right permits a property owner to forbid a union from entering their land, even if state law permits that union to do so.

more
https://www.vox.com/22323888/supreme-court-cedar-point-nursery-hassid-farm-workers-union-property-rights-takings-clause

[gratuitous]

1. Would that the Supreme Court respected union organizers as much as abortion protesters

We'll see. Maybe if the ruling is terrible (and there's no reason to think it won't be), Congress can craft legislation to nullify it.

[EndlessWire]

2. How does this fit with

that big Federal case which decided that someone's private property could be taken and given to another private party? I can't remember exactly which one that is, but it is outrageous, too.

I wouldn't eat in a restaurant that can't be inspected. Doesn't the word RAT mean anything other than a Repub?