One of the more frustrating tendencies, to me, at least, in blue states is the tendency for those states to allow Democrat donors to get away with absolutely outrageous things. Whether it’s not charging those donors for crimes that they’ve clearly committed (when that’s happened) or giving blatant favoritism to their family and supporters, Democrat supporters and donors get a sweet deal on shoveling tax payers’ dollars into their pockets.

Now, though, the U.S. Supreme Court smacked down a California law and by doing this gave a stinging rebuke to organizations who felt that they had the right to use other people’s property as they saw fit. Matthew Vadum writes,

A California regulation allowing labor organizers to disrupt businesses for hours every day for one-third of the year to recruit new members is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 vote along ideological lines.

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for property rights,” Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) senior attorney Joshua Thompson said in a statement. The decision “affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property.”

Tom Ozimek gives additional details:

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a California regulation forcing agricultural employers to allow union organizers access to their property is unconstitutional, delivering a win to business interests and advocates of private property protections.

In a 6–3 vote, the high court sided with two businesses that challenged the California rule that lets union representatives enter the grounds of an agricultural business for up to three hours a day over a 30-day period, for a total of 120 days each year, to speak with workers about supporting a union. The court found that the rule violates the Fifth Amendment, essentially by taking away owners’ right to exclude people from their property without just compensation.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing on behalf of the majority, noted in the opinion […] that when “the government physically acquires private property for a public use,” the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause “imposes a clear and categorical obligation to provide the owner with just compensation.”

“California’s access regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking. Rather than restraining the growers’ use of their own property, the regulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties (here union organizers) the owners’ right to exclude,” Roberts wrote, noting that the right to exclude is “a fundamental element of the property right.”

Now, to be clear, my point here isn’t to target unions specifically, but we have to acknowledge that unions are huge donors to Democrat political campaigns. The California law which was just overturned was Democrats’ way of trampling on citizens’ rights for the benefit of one of their donors, in this case, a union.

In the interest of full transparency, though, I’m not going to lie: I love seeing a Democrat donor getting the smackdown that they deserve for the abuse that they’ve given. The court did the right thing in this ruling.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here