Supreme Court Pays Closer Attention to Property Rights Cases

At Greenwire, Lawrence Hurley reports on a very interesting development at the U.S. Supreme Court. He writes:

After several years of paying little attention to property rights -- a darling cause of conservative activists -- the Supreme Court has abruptly changed course.

The justices have agreed to hear two cases this term, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that concern the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to compensate property owners when it takes property.

Property rights advocates also had some interest in two cases decided last term that, while not raising takings questions, did focus on broader questions of property rights in relation to government interference. In both, Sackett v. EPA and PPL Montana v. Montana, the property owners won.

The flurry of activity is in stark contrast to previous years. The last time the court heard more than one case on property rights was in the 2004-2005 term.

Read the whole story here.

The Supreme Court heard Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S. in early October (Koontz isn’t scheduled until January) and as I reported here at Reason after attending the oral argument, the federal government’s case appeared to be in trouble. The coming months may bring at least one more important Supreme Court victory for property rights.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They're throwing everyone a liberty bone after the election. But Arkansas Fish & Game Commission? It's government against government! I want them both to lose.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They're throwing everyone a liberty bone after the election. But Arkansas Fish & Game Commission? It's government against government! I want them both to lose.

    This. But in the case of FedGov v StGov, my conscience dictates that StGov should win virtually every time. There are VERY few exceptions.

  • Alex||

    "after attending the oral argument, the federal government’s case appeared to be in trouble."

    Yeah, the same thing was said after oral arguments of Obamacare.

    I look forward to Johnny Robby's "it could have been a tax so it's constitutional" reasoning to rear its ugly head again. Or maybe he'll be even more creative!

  • R C Dean||

    Probably something like "How can you call this a taking? The property is still right there where its always been! Nobody took it anywhere."

  • MJGreen||

    "Just because they haven't compensated the property owner doesn't mean they never will! We must defer to their judgment."

  • ||

    The magical golden calf of property rights is regulatory takings.

    In which the government takes away, not the property, but the rights to use the property.

    Somehow i do not think the supreme court is going to ever give regulatory takings any real look.

  • zandooo||

    Soudns like a pretty solid deal to me man. Wow.

    www.Anon-Webz.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement