The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid on whether the government must compensate property owners when it forces them to provide access to their land to outside private parties. The Ninth Circuit ruled that California law allowing unions limited access did not automatically create a taking subject to compensation. Some are concerned that if California prevails, governments in red states could pass laws enabling pro-lifers to access abortion clinics or allow pro-gun interests to enter businesses that ban guns. (The Hill, March 24, 2021, by Ilya Somin)
Justices objected to the plaintiff’s argument that property owners could exclude any unwanted person from their property perhaps including health and safety inspectors. And the plaintiff’s lawyer conceded that government workers could have access. A previous Supreme Court decision, NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1965), established that owners could ban union organizers from their property so long as the organizers could reach workers in other ways. (Vox, March 22, 2021, by Ian Millhiser)
Some conservative groups submitted briefs to the court in the Cedar Point case asking the Court to use the case to reverse Pruneyard Shopping v. Robins that permits citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech in private shopping centers. (Forbes, March 21, 2021, by Evan Gerstmann)