"Supreme Court Rules Against... a unique state regulation allowing labor representatives to meet with farm workers at their workplaces for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year."

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that 'the access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property.' That meant, he wrote, that it was a taking of private property without just compensation. The decision did away with a major achievement of the farmworkers’ movement led by Cesar Chavez in the 1970s, which had argued that allowing organizers to enter workplaces was the only practical way to give farmworkers, who can be nomadic and poorly educated, a realistic chance to consider joining a union.... Supreme Court precedents draw a distinction between two kinds of government takings of private property — those that physically claim a property interest and those that impose a regulatory burden. The first kind — 'per se' takings — requires compensation even if the property interest in question is minor. But regulations amount to takings only where the economic effect is significant. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the access regulation was a per se taking...."

Writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.

Here's the opinion, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. It's a 6-3 decision, with the Justices dividing in the way you'd guess.