PROPERTY A SLIDES

PROPERTY A SLIDES 1-26-17 National Peanut Brittle Day

Music: Rod Stewart, Every Picture Tells A Story (1971) PANEL SELECTION TODAY AT BREAK • Give me lists indicating who (if anyone) you want me to put on same panel with you. • Can do nothing & I will randomly assign you • Can give me groups of two or more students (up to about 15) & I will assemble into larger groups as needed • Check with people first, then hand in one list per group Lunch Tomorrow Meet on Bricks @ 12:25 Booth * Boughton Heria * Maryanoff Nashban* O’Neill

OUR COVERAGE of SHACK • 1. Look at possible theories not relied on by NJSCt (Roads Not Taken) (Tuesday  Today) • 2. Look at what court actually did. (Today  Monday) • 3. Apply case to new situations. (Next Week) • For Monday: Read Through Rev. Prob. 1G (S10) • I’ll Talk About as Exam Q Gen’ly & as Shack Problem

Shack: The Roads Not Taken Necessity (DQ1.06 cont’d) (Tuesday) Bargaining cont’d (DQ1.07) Constitutional Law (DQ1.08)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.07: Bargaining (Recap) Should we rely on bargaining to protect MWs’ interests? Can break down into two Qs: • Are there reasons we might not want to rely on bargaining? • Are these reasons strong enough to outweigh reasons we like bargaining? • Usually lower administrative costs than regulation. • Autonomy/clarity of interest: people better than the gov’t at identifying & articulating their own interests.

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.07: Bargaining (Recap) Reasons we might not want to rely on bargaining? Dilts/O’Neill ideas from last class: • MWs’ Lack of Bargaining Power (Supply of Unskilled Workers > Demand) • MWs’ Lack of Information (Education/Language/Lifestyle)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.07: Bargaining (Recap) Reasons we might not want to rely on bargaining? NJ SCt has similar focus on two sets of ideas: • Importance of Needsof MWs & Relative Power of Parties • Parties’ Relative Access to Information

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ1.07: Bargaining Importance of Needsof MWs & Relative Power of Parties • “[T]heneedsof the occupants may be so imperative and their strengthso weak, that the law will deny the occupants the power to contract away what is deemed essential to their health, welfare, or dignity.” (3d para. on S4) • Implicit Corollary: Allow Bargaining for Less Important Interests

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ1.07: Bargaining Importance of Needsof MWs & Relative Power of Parties • “These rights [privacy, dignity, customary associations] are too fundamental to be denied on the basis of an interest in real property and too fragile to be left to the unequal bargaining strength of the parties.” (5th para. on S6) • NOTE: “fundamental” here is general description of importance (v. “Fundamental Right” as Constitutional Term of Art)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN: DQ1.07: Bargaining Parties’ Relative Access to Information (See top para. on S5) • MWs “unaware” of rights & of available opportunities/services. • “[C]an be reached only by positive efforts….” • “Positive” means in this context …?

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.07: Bargaining Are these reasons strong enough to outweigh reasons we like bargaining? • NJ SCtobviously thinks so; you could disagree. • Recurring Qs in course re state intervention v. private decision-making; can use Shack arguments re relative need, power, and information.

Shack: The Roads Not Taken Necessity (DQ1.06 cont’d) Bargaining (DQ1.07) Constitutional Law (DQ1.08)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.08: Constitutional Law • Ds & US as Amicus make several uncertain Constitutional Arguments. Most importantly: • Supremacy Clause: Exclusion sanctioned by state would interfere w operation of fed’l statutes providing services to MWs • IMPORTANT: Fed’l Statutes cited in case do not address issue of physical access to MWs by gov’t workers or charitable orgs getting fed’l funding, so no explicit/direct Supremacy Clause issue.

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.08: Constitutional Law • Ds & US as Amicus make several uncertain Constitutional Arguments. Most importantly: • Supremacy Clause • 1stAmdt: Under Marsh [company town case], residentMWs have right to access to speech/information • 6thAmdt: MWs have right to access to lawyers.

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.08: Constitutional Law Prior students often have incorrectly stated that Shack turns on the MW’s constitutional or fundamental rights. However, the NJ SCt makes clear this is wrong by saying that deciding the case without relying on the state or federal constitution is “more satisfactory.”

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKENDQ1.08: Constitutional Law (2d para. on S4): “A decision in nonconstitutional terms is more satisfactory, b/c the interests of MWs are more expansively served in that way than they would be if they had no more freedom than these constitutional concepts could be found to mandate if indeed they apply at all.” Meaning of “more expansively served”?

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ1.08: Constitutional Law • “A decision in nonconstitutional terms is more satisfactory, b/c the interests of MWs are more expansively served in that way than they would be if they had no more freedom than these constitutional concepts could be found to mandate if indeed they apply at all.” (2d para. S4) • Meaning of “more expansively served”? • Can protect MWs more broadly while addressing same concerns. E.g., • If based in right to counsel, doesn’t help w Drs or social workers • If based on Supremacy Clause, limited to fed’l programs

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ1.08: Constitutional Law • (2d para. on S4): “A decision in nonconstitutional terms is more satisfactory, b/c the interests of MWs are more expansively served in that way than they would be if they had no more freedom than these constitutional concepts could be found to mandate if indeed they apply at all.” • Hard Constitutional Qs here. • Implicit: Common judicial principle: Try not to decide Constitutional Qs if don't need to • Also Note: • Unlikely to be subject to USSCt review if relying on state law rather than interpreting US Constitution. • Relevant consideration for active/cutting edge state S.Ct. like New Jersey.

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ1.08: Constitutional Law (2d para. on S4): “A decision in nonconstitutional terms is more satisfactory, b/c the interests of MWs are more expansively served in that way than they would be if they had no more freedom than these constitutional concepts could be found to mandate if indeed they apply at all.” Questions?

SHACK: What the Case Says Theory of the Case (DQ1.08-1.09) “Rules” (DQ1.10) Protecting Owners (DQ1.11 & 1.13) Shack & Jacque (DQ1.12)

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.08-1.09: Theory of Case • NJ SCt’s characterization of legal issue: • Not focused on rights of Ds, but on scope of right to exclude. • “[U]nder our state law, the ownership of real property does not include the right to bar access to gov’tal services to migrant workers.” (2d para. on S4) • What is the source of this assertion?

“[U]nder our state law, the ownership of real property does not include the right to bar access to gov’tal services to migrant workers.” (2d para. on S4) • NJ SCt’s Source of Law: • Court says explicitly not relying on state Constitution • No specific statute cited • Court rejects reliance on Landlord-Tenant law • Again, “no profit” in forcing into conventional category • Huge impact to give MWs full tenant rights, especially in NJ • DQ1.08: On what non-constitutional legal theory does the court rest its decision?

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.08-1.09: Theory of Case • NJ SCt’s Source of Law has to be its own interpretation of Common Law of Property: • Tort of trespass & general right to exclude themselves are judge-made law • Prominent exceptions like necessity are judge-made law • Thus NJ SCt has power to define nature of right to exclude

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.08-1.09: Theory of Case What does the N.J. Supreme Court mean when it says, “Property rights serve human values.” (Start of Part II)?

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.08-1.09: Theory of Case Why does the NJ SCt include the (LONG) quote from Powell on Real Property (bottom of S5)?

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.10 : “Rules” Identify passages in the case that could be used in future cases as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases. Focus on language that might be used to define circumstances in which the owner cannot exclude (as opposed to language explaining the limits that the owners can place on visitors they are forced to allow).

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES (DQ1.10 : “Rules”) • Passages that could be used as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases: • Specific Instructions • Employer can’t exclude “fed’l state or local services or … recognized charitable groups seeking to assist” MWs (3d para. on S6). (This would include related language: “[U]nder our State law the ownership of real property does not include the right a bar access to governmental services available to MWs” (2d para. on S4)). • “[T]he MW must be allowed to receive visitors … of his own choice, so long as there is no behavior hurtful to others…” (3d para. on S6)

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES (DQ1.10 : “Rules”) • Passages that could be used as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases: Specific Instructions • [M]embers of the press may not be denied reasonable access to workers who do not object to seeing them. (3d Para. on S6 per Papiasvili). • Employer may exclude “solicitors or peddlers … at least if the employer's purpose is not to gain a commercial advantage for himself….” (4th para. on S6) (cf. Grapes of Wrath)

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES (DQ1.10 : “Rules”) • Passages that could be used as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases: General Instructions (Overlapping) • Employer can’t “isolate the MW in any respect significant for the workers’ well-being.” (3d para. on S6) • Employer can’t “deprive the MW of practical access to things he needs.” (4th para. on S6)

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES (DQ1.10 : “Rules”) • Passages that could be used as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases: Very General Instructions • “[E]mployer may not deny the worker his privacy or interfere with his opportunity to live with dignity and to enjoy ass’ns customarily enjoyed among our citizens.” (5th para. on S6) • “Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises.” (3d para. of S4)

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES (DQ1.10 : “Rules”) Passages that could be used as a “rule” to help decide the scope of the right to exclude in future similar cases. We’ll primarily work with those listed on preceding slides. Other Passages You Identified?

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests Limits on Shack’sRight of Access: As noted above, O can exclude solicitors/peddlers if … • doesn’t deprive MWs of practical access to things they need. • purpose is not to gain a commercial advantage Os can reasonably require visitors to identify selves and state purpose Visitors cannot … • interfere w farming activities • engage in behavior hurtful to others

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (We’ll Get a Few Ideas from You) O can exclude solicitors/peddlers if … • doesn’t deprive MWs of practical access to things they need. • purpose is not to gain a commercial advantage Os can reasonably require visitors to identify selves and state purpose Visitors cannot … • interfere w farming activities • engage in behavior hurtful to others

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests • Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches) • Identify key interests and discuss whether rules adequately address. E.g., • Security • Privacy • Smooth Operation of Business

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests • Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches) • Identify key interests; do rules address? • Identify alternative/additional rules that might work better. E.g., • Limit times of access • Limit # of people allowed on land at one time • Limit frequency of visits • NOTE: These all probably are OK under Shack if reasonable

SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOESDQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests • Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches) • Identify key interests; do rules address? • Identify alternative/additional rules • Discuss whether relevant interests are balanced properly: • Workers’ minimal interest in possible benefits from media oversight is less significant than the owners’ interest in the smooth operation of their businesses because …

PROPERTY A SLIDES