The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2020. He now works in private practice and, more importantly, has joined the legal blogosphere.
Yesterday, Judge Griffith contributed his first post to the Yale Journal on Regulation's Notice & Comment blog, an analysis of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which concluded that California's law requiring agricultural employers to grant access to union organizers constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Like my co-blogger Josh Blackman, Judge Griffith thinks Cedar Point Nursery may have made significant changes to the law of regulatory takings. His post begins:
Much of the commentary about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021), has focused on its implications for labor law. Yet some of the Chief Justice's language in the majority opinion suggests a substantial reworking of the Court's approach to "regulatory takings"—an area that the Court has acknowledged to be "a problem of considerable difficulty." A close read of the opinion, however, suggests that even though Court may have reshuffled the categories it has used in the past to analyze takings claims, the law remains largely unchanged, if not slightly more obscure.
"Notice & Comment" was already a must read for folks interested in administrative law. With the addition of Judge Griffith to its roster of contributors, it is now even more so.