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.
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.
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.
The prominent libertarian public interest firm hopes to get the decision reversed, possibly by the Supreme Court.
The ruling has considerable backing from precedent. But it is nonetheless based on a deeply flawed doctrine.
Are there any limits to what police can do in pursuit of a suspect? The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals apparently doesn't think so.
The article is now available for free on SSRN.
The federal government continues to deny any liability for deliberately flooding thousands of homes and other property in Houston in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
Under its "crime-free housing program," Granite City, Illinois, holds tenants strictly liable for illegal activity by a household member.
The case was brought on the family's behalf by the Institute for Justice, a prominent public interest law firm.
The City of Baltimore has dropped its attempt to use eminent domain to take the Preakness Stakes Horse Race. But questions linger about the city's willingness to continue to use the threat of condemnation to force Preakness and other commercial enterprises to stay in the city.
The close 5-4 ruling is an important victory for constitutional property rights.
A lower court decision the Supreme Court is currently considering reviewing has important - and dangerous - implications for property rights.
The much-anticipated reargument of this important property rights case did not make clear what the Court will do, but overall did not go as well for the property rights side as the first argument did. It is still unclear, however, which way potentially crucial swing voter Justice Kavanaugh will lean.
The President's recent threat to use "the military version of eminent domain" to seize property for his border wall is just the tip of a larger iceberg of policies and legal positions inimical to constitutional property rights.
The ruling concerns flooding of property undertaken by the San Jacinto River Authority in order to mitigate the effects of Hurricane Harvey. Issues raised in the case are similar to those at stake in ongoing federal court litigation.
The Supreme Court has ordered reargument in a crucial property rights case. The outcome could hinge on an extremely dubious theory put forward in an amicus brief by the federal government.
A link to my review of an important new book on property rights by Cornell law Professor Gregory Alexander.
There is reason for cautious optimism that the Supreme Court will overrule or at least curtail a precedent that makes it difficult to bring many takings claims in federal court.
Knick v. Township of Scott addresses the issue of whether property owners with Takings Clause claims are entitled to access to federal court on the same terms as constitutional rights cases.
This is the latest in a series of federal court decision rejecting such arguments. The right to operate a taxi business does not create a "property" right in suppressing competition.
Many state constitutions require the government to pay compensation when it acts in ways that "damage" private property. An important new article by legal scholar Maureen Brady reveals the previously ignored history of these provisions, and the lessons that can be learned from it.
I coauthored an amicus brief in an important takings case, on behalf of the Cato Institute, The National Federation of Independent Business, and several other organizations.
