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.
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.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
