Harvard law Prof. Maureen Brady uncovers relevant evidence from late-nineteenth century state constitutional conventions.
It is yet another ruling that shields the government from liability for damages caused by law enforcement.
Contributors include Eugene Volokh and myself, among many others.
I wrote it (with help from others) on behalf of the Cato Institute and a group of takings and property scholars.
A recent 11th Circuit decision rightly ruled that mandatory Covid beach closures violated the Takings Clause. But the court overlooked the key issue of how to assess the "police power" exception to Takings Clause liability.
The Eleventh Circuit concludes "there is no COVID exception to the Takings Clause."
Landlords argue that rent caps on vacant units prevent them from financing the costs of legally mandated renovations.
I participated along with James Burling (Pacific Legal Foundation), Prof. Peter Byrne (Georgetown), and Prof. Sara Bronin (George Washington University).
Law enforcement launched 30 tear gas canisters into Amy Hadley's home, smashed windows, ransacked furniture, destroyed security cameras, and more. The government gave her nothing.
This one addresses the issue of whether the owner of a home foreclosed for nonpayment of debt is entitled to "fair market value" compensation, or only whatever the government gets from auctioning off the property, minus the debt owed.
By calling the Manchester Road Corridor “blighted,” the city can now use eminent domain to clear the way for a $436 million project.
Gloria Gaynor had almost finished paying off her house in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. But she will not see a dime in equity.
The mayor abandoned the plan after it aroused strong political resistance and threats of litigation.
They have done so banning or severely restricting low-cost "single-room occupancy" (SRO) housing.
Rent control would only make the housing crisis worse. Zoning reform would make things better.
In a rare and significant decision, a federal court ruled Brandon Fulton can sue directly under the Takings Clause—without Congress creating a specific remedy.
Victims of uncompensated takings can sue directly under the Constitution. The case involved uncompensated seizure of horses.
After a public outcry, the scheduled vote on the plan to use eminent domain has been postponed indefinitely. If the Town of Toms River does try to condemn the church, there is likely to be a major legal battle.
Years after home equity theft was ruled unconstitutional, Michigan keeps looking for ways around the ruling.
The state just cracked down on a form of state-sanctioned robbery, where governments seized and sold homes over minor tax delinquencies—and then pocketed the profits.
A new lawsuit alleges that the city's Mandatory Housing Affordability program unconstitutionally penalizes property owners just for trying to build housing.
Academics are supposed to discover nonobvious, counterintituitive truths. But, especially in recent years, much of my work involves defending positions that seem obvious to most laypeople, even though many experts deny them.
But Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strong dissent to denial of certiorari.
In recent years, exclusionary zoning and other regulatory restrictions have begun to block housing construction in areas where it was once relatively easy.
The panelists included Peter Byrne (Georgetown), Wesley Horton (counsel for New London in the case), Timothy Sandefur (Goldwater Institute), and myself.
On this anniversary, I have posted two new articles related to one of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions.
But now his case against the government can move forward.
Vicki Baker's legal odyssey is finally coming to an end.
The move may be a pretext for blocking the church's plan to build a homeless shelter. If the town proceeds, it will face near-certain litigation under the federal and state constitutions.
Plus: the federal government tries to stiff landlords over eviction moratorium one last time, the Supreme Court declines to take up eminent domain case, and starter home bills advance in Arizona and Texas.
We don't know why the justices chose not to take it.
A Rhode Island town seeks to use eminent domain to block construction of a large-scale affordable housing project.
Two modest defenses of Tyler’s choice of law strategy.
The Court’s departures from standard choice of law principles (or, takings doctrine for federal courts gurus).
The brief is on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
The Court's approach to the choice of law question (or, federal courts doctrine for property lawyers).
The Tyler case and the choice of law questions it raises.
A local government gave ownership of Kevin Fair's Nebraska house—and all of its value—to a private investor, in a practice known as home equity theft.
A Utica, New York, land grab offers the justices an opportunity to revisit a widely criticized precedent.
The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit a widely reviled decision that invited such eminent domain abuses.
Whether or not the government is required under the 5th Amendment to pay such victims will remain an open question.
Kelo is the 2005 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that the government can take property for private "economic development.""
Justice Gorsuch shows more interest in property rights challenges than his colleagues on the Court.
In this Texas Law Review article, Josh Braver and I argue that most exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
While I am eager for the Court to take another public use case, I am actually happy the justices chose to reject this one. Its unusual facts made it a poor vehicle for revisiting Kelo v. City of New London.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks