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.
An impressive new movie dramatizes the story behind the famous Supreme Court case about whether it is permissible for the government to condemn homes in order to promote private "economic development."
The state court ruling also concluded the taking violates the state constitution because it is for a forbidden "private use," rather than a public one.
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
A federal court correctly rejects a dubious takings claim by Philadelphia cab companies.
The city's goal is to curb "unconscious bias." But the policy is based on dangerous premises, and is likely to harm tenants more than it benefits them.
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
