North Carolina Using Eminent Domain To Seize Homes and a Church for Electric Car Factory
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.
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.
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.
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.
"This is very bad for property rights."
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.
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)
The former D.C. Circuit Judge is now a contributor to the Yale Journal on Regulation's Notice & Comment blog.
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.
It's the second in a two-part series on eminent domain reform.
A response to Jonathan Adler's attempt at an originalist defense of Kelo v. City of New London.
The general assumption that the Fifth Amendment bars takings for economic development purposes rests on shaky ground.
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.
It responds to a critique of the Supreme Court's major property rights ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, by Profs. Stewart Sterk and Michael Pollack.
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.
In this post, I consider some additional issues that came up in the recent Supreme Court oral argument in an important takings case.
The Court seems likely to rule in favor of property rights in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
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.
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.
Property owners are suing the city for helping far-left activists seize control of their property during the period when it allowed the latter to rule an "autonomous zone" covering 16 blocks in the area.
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.
I debated Prof. F.E. Guerra-Pujol. Prominent takings lawyer Robert Thomas moderated.
Despite a contrary argument by Prof. Enrique Guerra-Pujol, Kelo doesn't even address the relevant issue.
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.