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.
A Sixth Circuit decision holds qualified immunity protects a state elevator inspector from being sued for taking a hotel's property.
If the government floods private property on a recurring basis, it is automatically required to pay compensation, and owners' claims are not subject to a balancing test.
The Pacific Legal Foundation is sponsoring a symposium on this important issue, which may be of interest to legal scholars and others.
Legal scholar Julie Suk argues the answer is "yes." The idea has a solid basis in natural rights theory, but is at odds with longstanding legal doctrine. It also has potentially very broad libertarian implications.
a sub silentio invocation of the general law and positive law approaches
The Tyler home equity theft case is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of property rights issues where stronger judicial protection can protect the interests of the poor and minorities, as well as promote the federalist values of localism and diversity.
The Supreme Court ruled that home equity theft qualifies as a taking, and that state law is not the sole source for the definition of property rights. The ruling is imprecise on some points, but still sets an important and valuable precedent.
"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
The decision is at odds with Supreme Court precedent, and endangers the constitutional rights of millions of people. This brief urging the court to reverse it was filed by the Cato Institute and myself.
A new development project may finally build new housing on on property whose condemnation for purposes of "economic development" was upheld by the Supreme Court in a controversial 2005 decision.
There are several interesting revelations, including an unpublished dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The author of one of the Supreme Court's most widely hated rulings left us extensive files on the case, which have just been made public. They could help shed light on key unanswered questions about.
A win for Geraldine Tyler, who is now 94 years old, would be a win for property rights.
The decision may even be unanimous.
Takings cases often divide opinion along left-right ideological lines. The home equity theft case argued before the Supreme Court today is a rare exception.
My presentation covers an important takings case currently before the Supreme Court.
An unusual coalition of liberal and conservative justices rules that property owners have right to use Quiet Title Act to contest federal intrusion on their land, even in some cases where the statute of limitations may have passed.
The badly flawed ruling defies the Supreme Court's landmark 2019 decision forbidding such Catch-22 traps.
It argues for increasing the number of cases in the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" and proposes three worthy additions.
Under the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, a state can take private land to give to a private developer for almost any reason it wants.
The 2nd Circuit reasoned that the government hasn't necessarily taken a landlord's property when it forces him or her to operate at a loss while renting to a tenant he or she never agreed to host.
The video is part of the Federalist Society's series on important Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler's case challenging home equity theft.
Minnesota law allowed Hennepin County to seize a $40,000 home owned by a 93-year-old widow to pay off a $15,000 tax debt.
Doing so qualifies as a taking requiring "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
An important victory against "self-dealing" by state and local governments.
The podcast is a debate between legal scholar Brad Smith and myself.
They mandate occupation of private property without the consent of the owner.
But it does so on the ground that the moratorium was never properly "authorized," not because a moratorium could never be a taking.
The ruling authorizing the award is at odds with other federal court decisions holding that law-enforcement exercises of the "police power" are exempt from takings liability.
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.
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
