The Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid case, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020, centered around a California regulation that allowed union organizers to access agricultural property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year. The plaintiffs - two businesses operating in the agriculture sector - argued that this constituted a physical taking of their property without just compensation and thus violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. They sought an injunction against enforcement of this regulation on these grounds but were denied relief by both district court and Ninth Circuit appeals court rulings which held that such temporary invasions did not constitute a compensable taking under existing precedents like Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether or not the uncompensated appropriation of an easement allowing intrusion onto private property is indeed constitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the majority's decision to strike down California's regulation allowing union organizers access to agricultural workers on private property was a significant departure from established precedent. The dissent contended that this ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond labor law, potentially undermining various government regulations requiring businesses to permit certain types of entry onto their properties. They pointed out that previous court rulings had upheld similar laws as they did not constitute a permanent physical occupation of land but rather temporary invasions for specific purposes. The dissent also emphasized the importance of these regulations in protecting vulnerable farmworkers' rights and facilitating collective bargaining.