Farm-state lawmakers, climate hawks split on SCOTUS Clean Water ruling

On Monday, June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that property owners can challenge government regulations in federal court, even if those regulations do not result in actual physical takings of their land. This decision is considered a significant win for real estate and oil and gas corporations that have been pushing for greater property rights protection.

The case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, involved a California regulation that allowed union organizers to enter agricultural properties for three hours a day, up to 120 days a year, to talk to workers during their break times. Cedar Point Nursery and one of its longtime customers challenged the regulation, arguing that it was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, sided with the property owners, stating that the regulation constituted a “per se physical taking” under the Fifth Amendment, which protects private property rights. The court reasoned that the regulation granted a right to enter the property to the union organizers, which is a physical taking even if the property was not physically invaded. The ruling will allow property owners to seek damages in federal court for similar regulations they deem a taking of their property.

The decision is seen as a shift in the court’s approach to property rights cases, which historically focused on whether the government took physical possession of property. Now, property owners can challenge regulations that affect their use or enjoyment of their property, even if they do not result in actual physical takings. This move could have far-reaching implications for environmental and land use regulations, as well as zoning laws and other areas that could limit property owners’ rights.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, property rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for individual rights and the Constitution. Union organizers and labor advocates, on the other hand, expressed concern that the ruling could undermine worker protections and give corporations more power to challenge regulations that benefit workers.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid allows for greater protection of property rights, particularly for real estate and oil and gas corporations. The decision expands the definition of what constitutes a taking of private property and allows challenges to regulations that affect property use or enjoyment. Going forward, this ruling could have significant implications for environmental, land use, and zoning regulations, and it remains to be seen how it will be balanced with worker protections and other competing interests.



Source link