Understanding the scope of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Pittsburgh-area developers argue in a new lawsuit that the city's requirement that they include affordable units in their projects is an unconstitutional taking.
It explains why laws requiring private property owners to allow guns on their land are an affront to property rights, and violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Eighth Circuit Rules Eviction Moratoria are Likely to be Takings Requiring Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment
The court based its decision on the US Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
My Duke Center for Firearms Law piece on why laws forcing private property owners to allow guns on their premises violate property rights and often qualify as takings requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
A 93-Year-Old Woman Couldn't Pay Her $2,300 Tax Bill. The Government Sold Her Home and Kept the Money.
"This is very bad for property rights."
Federal Court Rules Takings Clause May Require Compensation when Police Destroy an Innocent Person's Home in Process of Pursuing a Suspect
The decision is at odds with rulings by some other federal courts, and could end up setting an important precedent.
Court finds that a Canton, Michigan ordinance requiring mitigation for tree removal constitutes an uncompensated taking.
Terrible Supreme Court Decisions that Should be Added to the "Anticanon" of Constitutional Law - Part I
Constitution Day is a good time to consider the issue of whether we have been overly accepting of some horrendous Supreme Court precedents. The Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889 is a great example.
I coauthored it with Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) and Alex Stremitzer (UCLA/ETH Zurich)
Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in the Cedar Point case, this suit has much better odds of success than previous takings challenges to eviction moratoria.
A new lawsuit from landlords argues that the CDC's eviction moratorium was a taking, and that they're entitled to compensation.
My Washington Times Article Making the Case for Increasing Compensation and Procedural Protections for Property Owners Who Lose their Land to Eminent Domain
It's the second in a two-part series on eminent domain reform.
The general assumption that the Fifth Amendment bars takings for economic development purposes rests on shaky ground.
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Bolsters Right to File Federal Takings Cases Against State and Local Governments
The Court clarified that the challenged policy need only be a "de facto final" decision, and that property owners are not required to exhaust all possible state bureaucratic procedures before filing a federal takings case. The Court also emphasized that Takings Clause property rights have "full-fledged constitutional status."
The article assesses today's important Supreme Court property rights ruling.
The ruling makes it far more difficult for the government to authorize physical invasions of private property without having to pay compensation under the Takings Clause.
The article is Part I of a two-part series.
Sixth Circuit Rules Property Owners Can go to Federal Court to Argue Takings Clause Bars Seizure of Home Equity in Cases Where Property is Foreclosed to Pay off Tax Delinquencies
The ruling may be the first major effect of the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, which ruled that property owners are not required to "exhaust" state court remedies before filing takings cases in federal court.
My article considers the implications of a major takings case currently before the Supreme Court.
The Court seems likely to rule in favor of property rights in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Supreme Court Ducks Opportunity to Clarify Regulatory Takings Doctrine - Over a Strong Dissent by Justice Thomas
Thomas is right that the doctrine is a mess. But the Court may not be in any hurry to clean it up.
Justice Thomas dissented from denial of certiorari by himself to urge a revamp of Takings Clause jurisprudence.
South Dakota Supreme Court Rules Property Owners not Entitled to Compensation for Severe Damage to their Home Inflicted by Police During a Law Enforcement Operation
The ruling denies relief under a state constitutional provision requiring compensation for "taking" or "damaging" of private property by the government. Many other states have similar provisions.
It will review a Ninth Circuit decision holding that there is no taking when the government forces property owners to grant union organizers temporary access to their property.
Michigan Supreme Court Rules Government Can't Seize Entire Value of Home Over Property Tax Delinquency Worth $8.41
The Court unanimously ruled such a tax "forfeiture" qualifies as a taking for which compensation must be paid.
The 4-2 ruling is reminiscent of the federal Supreme Court's dubious decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which also upheld a condemnation for a project that turned out to be a dud.
Today is the anniversary of one of the most controversial - and most unpopular - property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
Audio of Federalist Society Teleforum on Whether Enterprises Closed by Coronavirus Shutdown Orders are Entitled to Compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
I debated Prof. F.E. Guerra-Pujol. Prominent takings lawyer Robert Thomas moderated.
No, the Kelo Case Doesn't Require Takings Compensation for Businesses Closed by Coronavirus Shutdown Orders
Despite a contrary argument by Prof. Enrique Guerra-Pujol, Kelo doesn't even address the relevant issue.
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Reconsider Ruling that Mandating Union Organizer Access to Employer Property is not a Taking - but Eight Judges Dissent
The case is an important one that could be headed to the Supreme Court.
I have a contribution (coauthored with Shelley Ross Saxer) in this symposium on last year's important Supreme Court takings decision.
Our Amicus Brief Urging the Supreme Court to Consider Takings Case in Which Authorities Refused to Compensate Innocent Owners of House Destroyed by Police
The brief was filed by the Cato Institute on behalf of both Cato and myself.
Legal scholars Lindsay Wiley and Steve Vladeck explain why courts should not give special deference to the government in cases challenging the constitutionality of anti-coronavirus policies.
The Court's decision follows almost exactly the same line of reasoning as I had expected.
Alternative title: It's Always Locked Down in Philadelphia.
It particularly emphasizes ways in which weak property rights harm the poor and disadvantaged.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is almost always going to be "no." But some compensation may be morally imperative, even if not legally required.
The ruling may well be both correct and consistent with the same court's earlier ruling in favor of a different set of plaintiffs arising from the same events. But the opinion does still have a few notable flaws.
Forthcoming Article on "Overturning a Catch-22 in the Knick of Time: Knick v. Township of Scott and the Doctrine of Precedent"
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
The decision is significant in itself and has important implications for other cases where the government deliberately damages private property in the process of coping with natural disasters.
Institute for Justice Takes up Case where Federal Court Ruled Government Owes no Compensation to Innocent Property Owner Whose House was Destroyed By Police
The prominent libertarian public interest firm hopes to get the decision reversed, possibly by the Supreme Court.
Federal Court Rules there is no Taking if the Police Destroy an Innocent Person's House During a Law Enforcement Operation
The ruling has considerable backing from precedent. But it is nonetheless based on a deeply flawed doctrine.