The Buckeye Institute Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn PruneYard and Protect Property RightsJan 07, 2021
Columbus, OH – On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid arguing that the court should overturn PruneYard v. Robins, and protect the rights of property owners against trespassers.
“PruneYard was bad law when it was decided in 1980, and it hasn’t gotten any better with age,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute, referring to PruneYard v. Robins, the 1980 Supreme Court case, which found that forcing mall owners to allow signature gatherers on their private property did not constitute a violation of the Takings Clause. “It is far past time for the U.S. Supreme Court to dispense with the anomaly that is PruneYard, and to properly protect private property rights as the Constitution requires.”
This Pacific Legal Foundation case began in 2015 when representatives from the United Farm Workers union repeatedly entered the private property of Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company in a disruptive manner during harvest time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the State of California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board could force the property owners to permit the trespass based upon an expansive reading of the misguided aforementioned PruneYard decision.
# # #
UPDATE: June 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company and invalidated California’s unlawful regulation and affirmed that government can’t allow unions to invade private property and disrupt commercial operations without paying compensation for a property taking.