Justice Gorsuch Wants To Hear More (Takings) Cases
Justice Gorsuch shows more interest in property rights challenges than his colleagues on the Court.
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.
A handful of states use loopholes to get around a Supreme Court ruling that declared the practice unconstitutional.
Two brothers are asking the Supreme Court to stop their town from using eminent domain to steal their land for an empty field.
The property has remained empty for almost twenty years, after the Supreme Court's controversial ruling upholding its condemnation to promote "economic development."
It provides an overview of several major issues in land-use policy.
Bobby Debelak, new host of this podcast, interviewed me about a variety of topics related to eminent domain and property rights.
Plus: The Montana Supreme Court rescues zoning reform, and a new challenge to inclusionary zoning.
Kevin Fair fell behind on his property taxes in 2014. The local government eventually gave a private investor the deed to his home.
The Edmondson Community Organization accrued a modest property tax debt. The group paid dearly for that.
The 2-1 decision overrules a trial court decision that went the other way, and could set an important property rights precedent.
The report has useful data on the scope of the problem, and recommendations on what can be done about it.
Chelsea Koetter is asking the Michigan Supreme Court to render the state's debt collection scheme unconstitutional.
It is coauthored with Josh Braver.
A guest post on economist Bryan Caplan's Bet On It substack.
The decision exemplifies a longstanding issue in legal theory. It also highlights the absurdity of zoning rules.
Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh are reportedly out over $70,000. The government says it is immune.
The Show Me State has plenty of room to rein in laws on taking private property, but instead, lawmakers are focusing only on one very narrow use case.
The Eighth Amendment provides little, if any, protection for the homeless. But courts can help them by striking down exclusionary zoning, which is the major cause of housing shortages that lead to homelessness.
It's a good idea that will hopefully be imitiated by our allies.
Ethan Blevins of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains why. I myself have made similar arguments.
Economist Bryan Caplan, former National Association of Home Builders Director Jerry Howard, and I will speak at event sponsored by the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
The Court allows takings suit against Texas to proceed under state law, but doesn't resolve question of whether the Takings Clause is "self-executing."
The decision is unanimous, though some related issues have been left for later resolution.
The case raises an important issue about what qualifies as a "pretextual" taking. It's a rare takings issue on which I don't have a clear position.
In interview with Joe Selvaggi of the Pioneer Institute, I explain the harm caused by exclusionary zoning, and why it violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Where these laws allow squatters to occupy houses without the owner's consent, they qualify as takings of private property that require payment of compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
The New York Times and the Atlantic report on how the movement to curb exclusionary zoning and build more housing has managed to cut across ideological lines.
Prominent political commentator and zoning reform advocate comments on my work on this topic (with Joshua Braver).
Coauthor Josh Braver and I argue exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Both conservative and liberal justices seem to oppose letting states get away with violating the Takings Clause merely because Congress hasn't enacted a specific law enforcing it against them.
That's the big takeaway from yesterday's oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. But it's not clear whether the Court will resolve any additional issues, and if so how.
The panel covered many cases and featured views many would not expect at a Fed Soc event.
An error-prone investigation in search of a fugitive led police to Amy Hadley's house.
I focus on the Washington Supreme Court's flawed decision holding an eviction moratorium is not a taking of private property.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse its badly misguided precedent in Pruneyard v. Robins.
Owners of Wilmington, North Carolina's Cheetah Premier Gentlemen's Club say they were blindsided by the seizure.
The amicus brief is on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
The $300 billion in frozen Russian state assets in Western nations could fund a large part of Ukraine's defense.
The U.S. Supreme Court keeps putting off deciding whether to take up a challenge to New York's rent control scheme.
A zombie law, thrown out in court, continues to wreak havoc because it’s referenced in a contract.
The case will consider whether the government is exempt from takings liability for imposing exactions as a condition of development rights in situations where the exaction is imposed by legislation. Unlike many Supreme Court cases, this one can be resolved very easily by applying a basic principle of constitutional law.
The badly flawed lower court ruling defies the Supreme Court's landmark 2019 decision forbidding such Catch-22 traps, and threatens the property rights of large numbers of people.
In this case, an LA SWAT team destroyed an innocent store owner's shop in the process of trying to catch a suspect.
Carlos Pena's livelihood has been crippled. It remains to be seen if he'll have any right to compensation.