Ds entered on private property to aid migrant farm workers who were housed there.
Ds worked for the Farm Workers Division of the Southwest Citizens Organization for Poverty Elimination (SCOPE) and Camden Regional Legal Services, both funded pursuant to an act of Congress.
Complainant was the farmer who employed the migrant workers and housed them on his property.
Ds entered on Tedesco's farm and were confronted by Tedesco, who eventually called the police.
SC ruled for D, no trespass.
Does the employer of a migrant worker who lives on the employer's land have a right to exclude the migrant worker's visitors who are looking to assist the migrant worker?
The farmer-employer of a migrant worker does not have the right to exclude visitors who are looking to assist the migrant worker.
Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises. Their well-being must remain the paramount concern of a system of law.
Farm workers are a highly disadvantaged segment of our society. Are unorganized and have no economic or political power. The goal of the act of congress is to assist them.
The goal would not be achieved if the intended beneficiaries could be insulated from efforts to reach them.
It is in this framework that this issue must be analyzed.
Communication is key to reaching the farm workers. If aid people aren't allowed on the property, then there is no way that the workers will know that aid exists.
Property rights are not absolute and must accommodate changing circumstances and necessity.
This process must also involve an accommodation between the right of the owner and the right of individuals who are parties with the owner in a consensual transaction to the use of the property.
This argument includes the question whether the migrant worker should be deemed a tenant and thus entitled to the tenant's right to receive visitors or whether his residence is just incidental to his employment and thus involves no possessory interest in the realty.
Previous cases did not reach employment situations comparable to this one.
But, court says it is not necessary to decide upon a conventional category to put this case in.
In approaching this case, it is unthinkable that the employer can assert a right to isolate the migrant worker in any respect significant for the worker's well-being.
Farmer can pursue farming activities without interference, but there is no need for a right in the farmer to deny the worker the opportunity for aid available from gov't services or charity groups.
Migrant worker must be allowed to receive visitors.
Employer can ask for a visitor to identify himself and state his purpose for the safety of his workers. Peddlers and solicitors can be forbidden.
Ds have invaded no possessory rights of the farmer-employer, so no trespass.