The US Supreme Court held Wednesday in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassaid that a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se taking.

The case stems from a decades-old California regulation that allows union organizers to meet with farmworkers at their place of work. In 2016, two agricultural growers asserted that the regulation amounted to an easement across their properties and that they were entitled to compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The 6-3 opinion explored the Court’s line of precedent on takings. It concluded that “government-authorized invasions of property—whether by place, boat, cable, or beachcomber—are physical takings requiring just compensation.” Relying on the “take access” provision of the regulation, the Court held that plaintiffs do not have to allow union organizers on their property unless state officials provide compensation for the temporary “physical taking” of their property.

Several states filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs, citing “a longstanding commitment to protecting private property interests.” In defense of the regulation, a coalition of 14 property law professors filed a brief urging the Court to affirm the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, in which Justices Clarance Thomas, Samuel Alito, Niel Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The dissent urged readers to consider the sweeping impacts of the opinion. It argued that if access for union organization is considered a taking, then nearly all government inspections or entrances onto property would also be a physical taking.