Ross will soon have our summary of the Court’s decision in Cedar Point, holding that a California regulation granting unions limited access to agricultural employers’ property is a per se physical taking. I write to make a basic point, one which is flagged briefly in Justice Breyer’s dissent. In short, today’s holding – as bad as it is – does not mean that the union access right is impermissible. Instead, the holding means that employers are entitled to compensation if they are required to grant access to union organizers under the regulation. So, the Court in Cedar Point has rendered access rights more expensive for the state, but it has not banned the granting of such rights. How expensive access rights might be (including costs related to the processing of compensation claims), and whether those expenses would be so high as to make the rights functionally impermissible, remains to be seen. But here’s one possible point of reference: in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., the Court held that a regulation requiring landlords to allow cable companies to permanently install equipment on their properties was a per se taking. On remand, the state cable commission determined that the appropriate compensation was $1.