Mediaboss Marketing

Five career employees of the government of Puerto Rico sued Gov. Pedro Pierluisi at the federal court in San Juan for violating their constitutional rights by demanding they get vaccinated against COVID-19.

"The government of Puerto Rico is being arbitrary and capricious by coercing and tricking its public employees into getting vaccinated without regard to their fundamental right to personally refuse the vaccine," reads the lawsuit, presented by Jos Dvila Acevedo, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Zulay Rodrguez Vlez, Yohama Gonzlez, Leila Liborio Carrasquillo, and Julissa Piero denounce violations against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, they request a declaratory sentence order and a preliminary injunction. They argue that legal action is not capricious, nor arbitrary.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contest that the COVID-19 statistics suggest that the local government is "exaggerating the severity of the pandemic." Furthermore, they state that in Puerto Rico, the pandemic has not hindered health operations and that there are fewer cases than in other U.S. jurisdictions.

The government has not responded to THE WEEKLY JOURNAL's request for comment.

Read more from the original source:
Puerto Rico Gov Sued in Federal Court Over Vaccine Mandates - The Weekly Journal

Philadelphias new rule mandating masks in all indoor businesses unless everyone inside is required to prove they are fully vaccinated will go into effect Thursday.

Heres what you need to know.

READ MORE: Philadelphias new mask mandate begins at midnight

The city announced new mask and vaccine requirements for all indoor businesses on Wednesday.

Masks are once again required at all indoor businesses and institutions, whether or not youre vaccinated, unless the business is requiring staff to get vaccinated and is requiring proof-of-vaccination from patrons.

This means all indoor businesses, not just restaurants. Its also indoor offices and any indoor gathering space.

Masks are also required at non-seated outdoor events with more than 1,000 people.

The move comes as more employers, cities, and states are requiring proof of vaccination. As of Sept. 1, the city will also require all new hires to be vaccinated, and current city employees to be vaccinated or wear two masks while at work.

Philadelphias new mask mandate and proof-of-vaccination rule will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 12.

At cooling centers, which the city opens during heat emergencies and are open during this weeks heat emergency, the mask mandate went into place at noon Wednesday.

No. If businesses require staff to get vaccinated and require proof of vaccination from patrons, they do not have to require masks.

In other words, masks are only required in the indoor spaces that are not checking guests vaccination status and are not requiring staff to get vaccinated.

The new requirements are in place to slow the spread of the highly transmissible delta variant of COVID-19. Nationwide, daily case counts have doubled within the last two weeks. In Philadelphia, the rate of new cases has doubled three times in the last month. And though hospitals here are far from overrun by coronavirus cases like some other parts of the country, for the first time since June more than 100 people are hospitalized due to the coronavirus.

Experts have said vaccine requirements could encourage more people to get inoculated. Currently, 63% of city residents have been vaccinated.

The citys previous honor system, where officials strongly recommended everyone wear masks indoors, hasnt worked, acting Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole said, and its difficult for businesses to enforce masking rules based on individuals vaccination status.

I think all-or-nothing is really whats going to work for them at this point, she said.

The reinstated mask requirement is a first step, Bettigole said, adding that the city will reassess based on future case numbers, hospitalizations, and vaccination rates.

READ MORE: Should you laminate your vaccination card? What if you lose it? Here are the dos and donts.

The city is asking that all businesses require people to wear masks indoors, or, if establishments do not want to require masks, have a reasonable system for enforcing proof of vaccination, Bettigole said. That means businesses that do require proof of vaccination should ask to see patrons cards or a photo of the card on their phone.

Meanwhile, all other establishments must require individuals to wear masks regardless of their vaccine status indoors. Businesses enforcing a mask mandate should have signs making it obvious at the entrance, Bettigole said.

Enforcement of coronavirus rules is typically complaint-driven, Bettigole said, with inspectors visiting establishments under scrutiny. If issues are not corrected on site, inspectors can close a business and charge $315 to reinspect and reopen operations. In rare cases, the health department can take a business to court and charge fines of up to $2,000 per day.

If issues arise for a particular business enforcing the new rules, the city is happy to give them guidance, Mayor Jim Kenney said.

In many cases, you may be able to show a photo of your vaccine card on your phone instead of the actual card. Be sure to take pictures of both sides of your vaccine card and keep those pictures stored on your phone.

If youre traveling and need to show your vaccine card to cross a border, however, you should have the original document with you.

According to the city, valid proof of vaccination includes a CDC card, a vaccine record from the health department, vaccine passport apps, or cards from other countries.

In general, having your card on your person for instance, in your wallet or handbag isnt a bad idea, unless you are prone to losing things.

If you cant find your vaccine card and were vaccinated in Philadelphia, you can contact the citys COVID Call Center at 215-685-5488 or covid@phila.gov to get a record of your COVID vaccination status. The staff at the center will determine the fastest way to get you your immunization record. This record is not a copy of the card you received when you were vaccinated, but it will still show proof of vaccination.

READ MORE: How do I get a replacement vaccine card in Pennsylvania?

To be fully vaccinated, you have to have received your final vaccine dose at least two weeks ago.

For those who arent yet vaccinated, its easy to get a shot. There are many places throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey pharmacies, neighborhood rec centers, and more where you can get your free COVID-19 shot. Visit phila.gov to find a vaccination place near you.

If you have already had the coronavirus, you still need proof of vaccination to enter businesses requiring it.

To eat indoors at a space that requires proof of vaccination, you must show your vaccination card. In most cases, outdoor dining, unless explicitly noted by the restaurant, is still open to unvaccinated individuals.

In spaces that dont require proof of vaccination, indoor dining will still remain an option. The difference is masks will be required for patrons and staff (whether unvaccinated or vaccinated) when you arent eating or drinking.

READ MORE: These are the Philadelphia restaurants that require proof of vaccination

Yes and no. If you are in a standing crowd of more than 1,000 people, like a concert with a mosh pit, you must wear a mask regardless of vaccination status, Bettigole said. Additionally, at the Mann Center in Fairmount Park, masks are required at all times, unless youre eating or drinking.

If you are sitting down at a large outdoor event, like a Phillies or Eagles game, you do not currently need to wear a mask, she said, but will need a mask handy for visiting indoor spaces in the stadiums.

READ MORE: Eagles update COVID protocols at the Linc, will require fans and staff to wear masks in indoor spaces

And if you are attending a smaller outdoor gathering with fewer than 1,000 people say, a wedding or party you are not required by the city to wear a mask. However, if you feel more comfortable in your mask at a smaller outdoor gathering, there is nothing wrong with wearing one.

No. A defining feature of last years virus restrictions, the city is shying away from putting capacity limits on businesses for now, Bettigole said, hoping that the mask-or-vaccination rules will be effective without taking a toll on the economy.

We have a weapon now we didnt have last year: We have very effective vaccines and they are readily available and they are free, she said. Were going to have to watch the numbers and see if this works, but we are trying not to hurt our city economically at a time that its just starting to recover.

Unvaccinated people including children under 12 who are too young to receive the shot are not allowed inside businesses requiring proof of vaccination to enter, Bettigole said. In an Aug. 13 press conference, Bettigole clarified that children dining outdoors at restaurants that require proof of vaccination can still enter to use the bathroom.

Quick, masked bathroom trips dont violate the citys regulations, she said.

Also on Aug. 13, Bettigole noted that grocery stores, doctors offices, pharmacies, and urgent care centers must require masks and do not have the option to accept proof of vaccination instead. This allows children under 12 to still enter these spaces.

Philadelphia schools are expected to welcome students back for full-time in-person learning starting Aug. 31, and will require all students and staff to wear masks, regardless of vaccination status. Families not yet comfortable with the return to classrooms can enroll in virtual schooling.

READ MORE: Philly tweaks mask mandate to help parents of young children

Yes. Much like a dress code or a friendly no shirt, no shoes, no service reminder, businesses can require proof of vaccination and masks.

According to Eric Feldman, professor of law and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, requiring proof of vaccination does not violate HIPAA or the Fourth Amendment.

Its quite clear that restaurants, airlines, cruise ships, your local caf, your local university, [or] the school that you may choose to send your child to are all within their legal bounds in asking you to demonstrate that you or your child has been vaccinated, he says.

Staff writer Sean Collins Walsh contributed to this article.

READ MORE: Live your best life in Philly: Read our most useful stories here

The rest is here:
Everything you need to know about Phillys new COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Seven years after the arrest that became his lifes preoccupation, Scott Jordan Jr. is still in disbelief.I was blown away at how that all just unfolded and how I was treated, Jordan said in an interview following the recent jury verdict in a civil rights lawsuit he successfully brought against police in Waldoboro, Maine. Jordan, 43, a corrections officer for 23 years at the Cumberland County Jail, has been fighting his 2014 arrest for what police had portrayed as elder abuse.The case centered around Jordans ailing then-66-year-old, father, Scott Jordan Sr., who had once sold and delivered seafood and later co-owned an antique shop.He bounced around from job to job, Jordan said of his father, who he described as an alcoholic smoker with liver disease and diabetes. Jordan said he spent time and money fixing up his fathers house, in Waldoboro, so it could be sold to pay for medical treatment and that he planned to have his father move in with him.Jordan said, Whenever he needed me, I was always there for him. Jordan said, during a hospital stay, his father feared his assets could be seized and asked his son to assume power of attorney over his financial affairs. On May 15, 2014, Jordan Sr. signed the form.I wasnt even in the room when he signed it, Jordan said. At no point was he concerned with me pocketing cash and absconding to Switzerland or something.Jordan raised $3,000 in a yard sale of his fathers belongings, took possession of his 2003 Chevy Silverado pickup truck--and his guns, two shotguns and a revolver, he says, because his father was expressing suicidal and irrational thoughts.Jordan recounted telling his father: Dad, youre in and out of it. I dont want to see you have an episode and then think Im some burglar, and Im really your son, and you take a shot at me.On July 31, 2014, Jordan Sr. rescinded the power of attorney, and his lawyer subsequently asked Jordan Jr. for an accounting of the fathers belongings. Jordan Sr. also called Waldoboro Police.I received numerous complaints from his father, Senior, that he felt his son was exploiting him financially, Larry Hesseltine, then a Waldoboro detective who picked up the investigation, said in an interview.Hesseltine is now police chief in Wiscasset, capping a 30-year career in law enforcement.He said, I take pride in being that police officer that is out there to help people.He said he had no prior experience dealing with a power of attorney agreement.His son had obtained some property that wanted back, and his son was refusing to return it for whatever reason, Hesseltine said. My time talking with Senior, from August on, til November, the time of arrest, I never once felt Senior was suicidal.In November 2014, Jordan Jr. posted an ad on Craigs List selling the truck for $7,900. After learning that, Hasseltine filled out a search warrant for Juniors home approved by a judge.The crime is theft, Hesseltine said. The fact that he was in law enforcement, in my mind back then, didnt put him above the law. However, as court proceedings would later decide, the warrant neglected to mention the original power of attorney or that Jordan Jr. had offered to give his fathers guns to police for safe keeping. On November 21, 2014, without ever interviewing Jordan Jr., Hesseltine arrested him at his Standish home in front of his 10-year-old daughter.Jordan said, I was in full uniform, armed myself, getting her ready for school, and he took me down like a Colombian drug lord, with my house surrounded.Bail conditions required Jordan Jr. to stay away from his father, who died 10 months later, in September 2015, at 67. The son never saw the father again. Without the key prosecution witness, the Knox County District Attorney dropped all criminal charges. In 2016, Jordan Jr, sued Hesseltine, the police department, and the town for wrongful arrest stemming from what the plaintiff depicted as a faulty search warrant resulting in a wrongful arrest.Jordan said, It was done illegally. He didnt present the facts the way he was supposed to. He didnt fact check anything.The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by their government.For the year his criminal investigation was active, Jordan was suspended from his corrections officer job, six months without pay. Unpaid, on MaineCare, getting Food Stamps, Jordan said.After an eight-day trial in Portland federal court last month, with Hesseltine the only remaining defendant, a jury sided with Jordan and awarded him $15,000 in damages, far less than the $175,000 the town of Waldoboro had offered him to settle the case and keep quiet.Jordan said, Im getting satisfaction. Im getting my name back.Hesseltine was never disciplined and says he acted with guidance from the DA and state attorney general, and until the jury verdict, says no one told hed done anything wrong.I dont agree with the jurys decision, but I have to respect the jurys decision, and going forward, I can only take steps to make sure Im never is this situation again. Hesseltine said. My only regret is I wish I had taken better notes back then. ###

Seven years after the arrest that became his lifes preoccupation, Scott Jordan Jr. is still in disbelief.

I was blown away at how that all just unfolded and how I was treated, Jordan said in an interview following the recent jury verdict in a civil rights lawsuit he successfully brought against police in Waldoboro, Maine.

Jordan, 43, a corrections officer for 23 years at the Cumberland County Jail, has been fighting his 2014 arrest for what police had portrayed as elder abuse.

The case centered around Jordans ailing then-66-year-old, father, Scott Jordan Sr., who had once sold and delivered seafood and later co-owned an antique shop.

He bounced around from job to job, Jordan said of his father, who he described as an alcoholic smoker with liver disease and diabetes.

Jordan said he spent time and money fixing up his fathers house, in Waldoboro, so it could be sold to pay for medical treatment and that he planned to have his father move in with him.

Jordan said, Whenever he needed me, I was always there for him.

Jordan said, during a hospital stay, his father feared his assets could be seized and asked his son to assume power of attorney over his financial affairs.

On May 15, 2014, Jordan Sr. signed the form.

I wasnt even in the room when he signed it, Jordan said. At no point was he concerned with me pocketing cash and absconding to Switzerland or something.

Jordan raised $3,000 in a yard sale of his fathers belongings, took possession of his 2003 Chevy Silverado pickup truck--and his guns, two shotguns and a revolver, he says, because his father was expressing suicidal and irrational thoughts.

Jordan recounted telling his father: Dad, youre in and out of it. I dont want to see you have an episode and then think Im some burglar, and Im really your son, and you take a shot at me.

On July 31, 2014, Jordan Sr. rescinded the power of attorney, and his lawyer subsequently asked Jordan Jr. for an accounting of the fathers belongings. Jordan Sr. also called Waldoboro Police.

I received numerous complaints from his father, Senior, that he felt his son was exploiting him financially, Larry Hesseltine, then a Waldoboro detective who picked up the investigation, said in an interview.

Hesseltine is now police chief in Wiscasset, capping a 30-year career in law enforcement.

He said, I take pride in being that police officer that is out there to help people.

He said he had no prior experience dealing with a power of attorney agreement.

His son had obtained some property that wanted back, and his son was refusing to return it for whatever reason, Hesseltine said. My time talking with Senior, from August on, til November, the time of arrest, I never once felt Senior was suicidal.

In November 2014, Jordan Jr. posted an ad on Craigs List selling the truck for $7,900.

After learning that, Hasseltine filled out a search warrant for Juniors home approved by a judge.

The crime is theft, Hesseltine said. The fact that he was in law enforcement, in my mind back then, didnt put him above the law.

However, as court proceedings would later decide, the warrant neglected to mention the original power of attorney or that Jordan Jr. had offered to give his fathers guns to police for safe keeping.

On November 21, 2014, without ever interviewing Jordan Jr., Hesseltine arrested him at his Standish home in front of his 10-year-old daughter.

Jordan said, I was in full uniform, armed myself, getting her ready for school, and he took me down like a Colombian drug lord, with my house surrounded.

Bail conditions required Jordan Jr. to stay away from his father, who died 10 months later, in September 2015, at 67. The son never saw the father again.

Without the key prosecution witness, the Knox County District Attorney dropped all criminal charges.

In 2016, Jordan Jr, sued Hesseltine, the police department, and the town for wrongful arrest stemming from what the plaintiff depicted as a faulty search warrant resulting in a wrongful arrest.

Jordan said, It was done illegally. He didnt present the facts the way he was supposed to. He didnt fact check anything.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by their government.

For the year his criminal investigation was active, Jordan was suspended from his corrections officer job, six months without pay.

Unpaid, on MaineCare, getting Food Stamps, Jordan said.

After an eight-day trial in Portland federal court last month, with Hesseltine the only remaining defendant, a jury sided with Jordan and awarded him $15,000 in damages, far less than the $175,000 the town of Waldoboro had offered him to settle the case and keep quiet.

Jordan said, Im getting satisfaction. Im getting my name back.

Hesseltine was never disciplined and says he acted with guidance from the DA and state attorney general, and until the jury verdict, says no one told hed done anything wrong.

I dont agree with the jurys decision, but I have to respect the jurys decision, and going forward, I can only take steps to make sure Im never is this situation again. Hesseltine said. My only regret is I wish I had taken better notes back then.

###

View post:
Cumberland County corrections officer sees vindication in jury verdict for wrongful arrest - WMTW Portland

The University initially required mandatory vaccines in order to come back to school for the fall, but their policy was challenged with a lawsuit.

MANSFIELD, Connecticut UConn has approved more than 500 unvaccinated students to return to campus this fall.

Recently filed court documents showed they were granted exemptions from the University's requirement for non-medical reasons.

The University initially required mandatory vaccines in order to come back to school for the fall, but their policy was challenged with a lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, it argued, "imposing mandatory vaccinations as a condition for attending UConn violates their Fourth Amendment procedural due process" and it went on to say it violated state and federal laws that gives individuals an option to choose.

That is how Katrell Clay felt; while he is vaccinated, he believed it should not be forced.

"The vaccine is new and not a lot of people are comfortable with putting something into their body that there's not a whole lot of research on it but at the end of the day it's only been out for a year," said Clay, a senior at UConn.

Dr. Ted Doolittle, a state healthcare advocate said he is worried as these exemptions could mean getting the vaccinated infected too.

"Now they'll be around vaccinated people and we now know the vaccinated people can carry the virus too. Again, my concern is for the safety of these vaccinated students," said Dr. Doolittle of the CT State Office of the Healthcare Advocate.

The University's spokesperson said students who are vaccinated must show proof of their card to student health and wellness.

Their most recent figures showed over 90-percent of on-campus students are vaccinated, a percentage they expect to keep increasing.

Governor Lamont expressed his concern about UConn's decision at a news conference on Wednesday.

"We've got to sit down and talk to UConn about this. Look, people live in a congregate setting at UConn. They live in a congregate setting ... all our colleges ... really important for all our colleges to get back, an overwhelmingly amount is vaccinated so I do worry there's a lot of leakage there," said Gov. Lamont.

Even with strict guidelines, the unvaccinated must follow, some students said it still would make them uncomfortable.

"There's a level of uneasiness still because you can say you're getting quarantined and say you'll put your mask on but there's really no guarantee," said Jones, a senior at UConn.

UConn's spokesperson told FOX61 if students want to wait to get their vaccine until they arrived on campus, they can do so, and following up with those students, the University said a majority of them plan to.

HERE ARE MORE WAYS TO GET FOX61 NEWS

Download the FOX61 News APP

iTunes:Click here to download

Google Play:Click here to download

Stream Live on ROKU:Add the channel from the ROKU store or by searching FOX61.

Read more:
UConn's non-medical vaccine exemption met with criticism from students and healthcare advocates - FOX 61

Originally printed in the July 2021 issue of Produce Business.

It is not all that often that a produce company winds up with a case before the Supreme Court. So when Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid rose up a case involving Cedar Point, a strawberry nursery, and Fowler Packing, a shipper of grapes and mandarins we reached out to Jeremy Rabkin, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School and asked if he would explain the nature of the issues that brought the produce industry to the Supreme Court.

He was kind enough to do so. The Supreme Court wound up deciding in favor of Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing on June 23. We thought sharing Professor Rabkins analysis of what the case involved would be very valuable:

The first case in this century to deal with labor law involving agricultural workers Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid was heard by the Supreme Court this year.

The dispute [involved] a regulation requiring agricultural employers to grant access to union organizers to private land, so the organizers can make direct appeals to farm workers to support the union. This regulation requires growers to grant access for up to three hours a day and 120 days a year (in four 30-day periods). Cedar Point and Fowler Packing Co. refused (or tried to refuse) access to union organizers and so ran afoul of the regulatory body, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB).

As most of the California-based judges viewed the issue, CALRB is imposing reasonable regulation of commercial operations. The regulation is constitutional (in their view), since it does not impose costs that preclude commercially viable use of the affected land.

On the other side, advocates for Cedar Point argue that CALRB is not simply regulating how Cedar Point operates but it is taking control of its property. The right to exclude outsiders, they argue, is a fundamental aspect of ownership, and the regulation deprives Cedar Point of that right (even if the deprivation is limited and time-bound).

In the background, then, are different constitutional perspectives on property rights. These constitutional arguments about property have generated considerable interest in Cedar Point. Seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court, all arguing on behalf of property rights of the growers, most from organizations with no particular connection to agriculture policy.

But the Supreme Court likely sees the background constitutional issues only after noticing the foreground dispute about labor relations in agriculture. Perceptions of that foreground setting may well have changed since California began to regulate in this area, nearly a half century ago.

Defenders of the California regulation seem to have a solid precedent on their side. In NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox(1956), the U.S. Supreme Court held that union organizers might have a legal claim to enter isolated work sites where they could not get access to workers otherwise. In 1975, it was at least plausible to think efforts to organize farm workers in California would fall under this dispensation.

In Babcock, the Supreme Court saw the need for balance between the organizing rights of employees (under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act) and the property rights of employers. But the Court saw that rule as inapplicable to the factory in Babcock (and related cases appealed at the same time): The plants are close to small well-settled communities where a large percentage of the employees live. The usual methods of imparting information are available. The Court concluded that the National Labor Relation Act does not require that the employer permit the use of its facilities for organization when other means are readily available.

Such reasoning in the 1970s might have seemed to justify access requirements for organizers trying to reach farm workers. Back then, a large proportion of farm work was done by migrant workers who lived in temporary shelters on the farms where they worked.

In its amicus brief, the California Farm Bureau Federation (representing growers) points out that some three-quarters of crop workers now work at a single location within 75 miles of their home (and almost all within a metropolitan area); all but a relative handful of workers live outside the properties where they work. The UFW even operates radio stations where it can easily give notice to workers about places to seek information (or impending meetings with organizers at other locations). It is not uncommon for farm workers to have cell phones. Off-site organizers can call them (or the workers can call the organizers) to get information about the time and place of outside meetings where the benefits of unionizing will be discussed.

On the other side, defenders of the CALRB regulation say it is not a great imposition on land owners because it stipulates that organizers should only be allowed an hour before and an hour after work and an hour during the lunch break. The growers complain, however, that the actual practice of organizers was to show up with bull-horns, blaring at workers during their lunch. The regulation, they say, goes beyond provision for distribution of leaflets or scheduling subsequent voluntary meetings. It facilitates bullying tactics, with organizers showing up day after day, haranguing the workers.

The reason to fear bullying tactics is that participation in the United Farm Workers Union has fallen off considerably. It is not because CALRB has failed to support organizing efforts. Even a quite liberal state supreme court chided the board in another case Gerawan Farming vs. ALRB for holding back ballots in a dispute over a union election which turned out to be overwhelmingly against joining the union.

If you accept the premise that workers can decide the question of unionizing for themselves, you might conclude they should be left to decide whether they want to attend organizing meetings at outside locations, rather than insist the organizers must come unto the land where workers happen to be engaged during the day. Or is that making too much fuss about land ownership?

The Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibits taking private property except for public use and with just compensation. The guarantee does not emphasize land or real estate in particular. But the Supreme Court has long been more sympathetic to complaints about taking of physical property, even when partial and minor.

In this case, the Ninth Circuit judges previously concluded that the access rule imposed by CALRB was not a taking in this sense, because the access rights were of limited duration. An owner may sell a right of access or transit to a particular neighbor or affected business. The sale would not be less valid if the owner stipulated that it was only, say, for weekdays during daylight hours or alternately, only for holidays and other special days.

An amicus brief in Cedar Point, submitted by ten state attorneys general, poses the arresting question: If the government simply claimed such access rights and then handed them off to particular private parties, would that not be regarded as a taking of property?

One can object that it is overly formalistic to focus on whether there is some outside physical presence hence per se taking without analyzing how costly or intrusive it really might be in practice. But there is considerable attraction to drawing a bright line that isolates any ongoing outside presence as objectionable.

The point of private property is that the private owner gets to decide what is the best way to manage it, hence what intrusions to allow and what to reject. True, government regulations may require owners to adopt various safety devices (such as fences around pools or water) and environmental safeguards (say, by protecting endangered species), but the owners get to determine when and how to implement such obligations. Its something else arguably to allow outsiders to come in when they choose and operate directly on the owners land.

The danger of letting courts weigh costs and convenience is that public agencies with license from accommodating judges come to make more and more substantial claims, ending up as co-managers or nearly co-owners of the property, as they weigh how much of its use can be diverted to purposes the actual owner does not approve. It makes private property less private or makes property less meaningful as a claim to control by the owner.

An amicus brief in Cedar Point by the libertarian Cato Institute makes this point by analogy with the Fourth Amendment. That includes the guarantee that police (or other government agents) will not conduct searches except on probable cause [to suspect crime] and normally only after securing search warrants.

The analogy is instructive. Would we say it is acceptable for police to enter homes without warrants, so long as they only show up during the day, dont stay more than 45 minutes and merely take photographs of what can be seen from the center of each room? Would this really be so disruptive? Perhaps not, by some reckonings. But it might well undermine the point of the Fourth Amendment, to protect the home as a refuge from prying eyes.

Of course, we do empower governments to check up on things, even things on private property. Is there a danger that a sweeping decision in Cedar Point will endanger necessary government regulatory measures? It seems unlikely.

Some advocates may see union organizers as helping to implement a public purpose of bringing more workers under the protection of unions. The premise of labor legislation is not that everyone should be in a union but that workers should have a right to decide.

If workers need to be protected against pressure from employers, they may also deserve protection from bullying organizers. Perhaps growers here who add so much to the healthfulness and variety of our meals have some claim to be protected from disruptions, too.

The Supreme Courts willingness to take up Cedar Point suggests it wants to say more about labor law. Perhaps it also wants to say more about property rights. The immediate upshot may be little more than requiring California to pay compensation for letting union organizers march onto private property. But how the Court explains this result may cast a shadow over future legal developments (for good or ill).

The follow up to this decision has been relatively quiet, mostly because the case is complicated. There is no question, though, that it is an important win for growers and, we would say, for all who believe in the concept of private property.

In a conversation with Professor Rabkin after the decision, he pointed out that the 6-3 decision with all the Republican appointees in favor and all the Democratic appointees opposed that this might indicate a common line in defending property rights, even when that requires them to expand the reach of settled precedent.

The legal question revolved heavily on what was a taking and what was a regulation. The majority of justices joined Chief Justice John Roberts opinion relying on the constitutional provision calling for just compensation in the event of a government taking and finding a law that allowed Union Organizers onto private property such a taking:

Government-authorized invasions of property whether by plane, boat, cable, or beachcomber are physical takings requiring just compensation.

In contrast, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the dissenting justices:

The regulation does not appropriate anything. It gives union organizers the right temporarily to invade a portion of the property owners land. It thereby limits the landowners right to exclude certain others. The regulation regulates (but does not appropriate) the owners right to exclude.

The California law at issue was enacted in 1975, and the United States Supreme Court had, in 1976, refused to take up the case. So this is a big change of settled law.

Though it didnt seem to be a big issue in the opinion, we would argue that communications technology has made a huge change in the way these types of cases will fall in the future. The invention of cell phones, the Internet, social media, etc., changes these issues. Back in 1975, maybe workers were isolated but, nowadays, they all have cell phones and go on the Internet.

It also was disturbing that Justice Breyers dissent did not give more credence to the rights of property owners. It is one thing to let in police, fire fighters, property inspectors or other government employees who have legal obligations in how to behave and what to do on your property. It is something else entirely to have private actors, not constrained in the same way, traipsing across ones property.

We thank Professor Rabkin for helping the industry think through this important case.

Read more here:
A Produce Industry Victory In The US Supreme Court - Produce Business