The Supreme Court has officially made it harder for farm worker organizers in the country's largest agricultural producing state to share information about unionization with workers. This blow to workers' rights could make it harder for workers to fight for better regulation of their health and safety conditions. However, farmers argue that this decision reaffirms an essential element of their property rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the 6-3 decision that took away California union supporters' right, which had existed in the state for 45 years, to access farm property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year. Organizers traditionally used this access to inform workers about their unionization efforts while those workers are off the clock.

According to union officials, this access is essential to the organization's ability to communicate and inform workers who are largely transient. However, farm owners argued that the CA rule was "archaic" and constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause.

"Government-authorized invasions of property -- whether by plane, boat, cable, or beachcomber -- are physical takings requiring just compensation," Roberts wrote in support of the farm owners' argument. "Accordingly, the growers' complaint states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

Roberts claimed that the "right to exclude" individuals from private property is a "fundamental element of the property right."

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer argued that the 45-year-old regulation only allowed organizers temporary access and that this access would amount to taking, in the Fifth Amendment sense, if it went "too far."

"In my view, the majority's conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical," Breyer wrote.

In response to these concerns, Roberts argued that there is no reason to believe that this access to private property is "consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights", meaning that removing this right would not change the government's longstanding ability to "require property owners to cede a right of access as a condition of receiving certain benefits, without causing a taking."

Farm owners have come out in strong support of the Court's decision, claiming that it protects their ability to run their businesses "without unlawful interference", as written by Cedar Point Nursery owner Mike Fahner in a statement on the rurling. Cedar Point was the defendant in the Supreme Court case.

"This decision protects everyone's freedom to decide for themselves who is - and is not - allowed on their own property," Fahner wrote.

The CA farm workers' union and the largest union in the country, the United Farm Workers, on the other hand, says that the Court's decision is a step backwards when it comes to civil rights, arguing that this move will compound the racism and inequality amongst laborers.

"The Supreme Court ruling certainly makes a racist and broken farm Labor system even more unequal for farm workers," United Farm Workers chief counsel, Mario Martinez, told ABC News.

"Farm workers are the hardest working people and certainly essential workers that people have realized during this pandemic and the decision denies them the basic right to communicate about their rights on their own free time, not on the employers time on their own free time," Martinez added.

The issue central to the case reportedly began in October of 2015 when a group of union activists with flags and bullhorns showed up on Fahner's farm to organize workers in the early hours of the morning. Fahner sued as soon as he discovered the organizers' actions were legal in the state of California.