When the government seizes private property, it has to meet two conditions spelled out in the Fifth Amendment: The property must be taken for public use, and the government must reimburse the owner with just compensation. Starting around the middle of the last century, "public use" became "public purpose." Then came the 2005 Kelo case, in which the town of New London, Conn., took private property to give it to other private interests it hoped would use the land better, and the Supreme Court said that was OK. Reaction to Kelo was ferocious, and sparked reform. But, points out A. Barton Hinkle, government bodies often will take private property for genuinely public uses, such as a road—and then try to stiff the owners, especially if they don't take the first offer that's put in front of them.
Sandy Martinez says that fine, along with another $63,500 for driveway cracks and a downed fence, violates Florida's constitution.
'Everything Has Been Criminalized,' Says Neil Gorsuch as He Pushes for Stronger Fourth Amendment Protections
The justice weighs in during oral arguments in Lange v. California.
A nationwide ban on evictions is well outside the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, ruled U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker on Thursday.
A California Man Died After Cops Knelt on His Neck During a Mental Health Call. Then the Department Tried To Hide It.
Angelo Quinto's family has filed a wrongful death claim.
The proposed bill from Assembly Members Evan Low and Cristina Garcia would require stores to have one unisex section for children's products and apparel.