So the Washington Supreme Court holds in a case involving a man who was living in his truck, and who had to pay the money when his truck was impounded for being parked too long in one place.
The administration issued the order even while conceding that it lacked the authority to do so.
The Reason Roundtable discusses property rights, vaccine passports, and media ethics.
The new eviction moratorium applies to the 90 percent of counties in the U.S. where the spread of COVID-19 is "substantial" or "high."
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.
The commission says the legislature should raise the standard of proof and remove the financial incentive that encourages cops and prosecutors to pursue profit instead of public safety.
Circuit Judge John K. Bush accuses the federal government of laying claim to "near-dictatorial powers."
Sandy Martinez is challenging the exorbitant penalty for driveway cracks, a storm-damaged fence, and cars parked in an "unapproved" manner on her own property.
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.
It's an indication that the notorious decision holding that the government can take property for private "economic development" may be vulnerable.
Brett Kavanaugh, who provided a crucial fifth vote, said he agrees that the CDC does not have the authority to override rental contracts.
The agency’s legal defense of its eviction moratorium implies that it has vast powers to order Americans around.
The Court's ruling in PennEast allows the federal government to delegate the power of eminent domain to private firms seeking to condemn state-owned property.
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.
Today produced one of the Supreme Court term's few true conservative-liberal splits, and showed additional signs of a generational divide on criminal law.
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.
Warren Lent is suing the California Coastal Commission, arguing that its power to unilaterally hand down massive fines with minimal process is unconstitutional.
The article, which is available free on SSRN, criticizes claims that governments have a right to exclude migrants based on various theories of self-determination.
The question of proportionality assumes that punishment is appropriate for peaceful conduct that violates no one's rights.
The case has generated three state supreme court decisions, plus a landmark ruling by the federal Supreme Court.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he stands for freedom. That doesn't apply to business owners.
Cruel NIMBYism hides in call for historic preservation.
As in the US, they often block the building of new housing in response to demand.
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.
The new law requires a criminal conviction prior to civil forfeiture and beefs up due process protections for property owners.
The latest ruling from the a U.S. District Court in D.C. finds the agency vastly exceeded its powers in banning landlords from trying to evict non-paying tenants.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims to be enforcing a law that prohibits "false or misleading representations."
PennEast v. New Jersey features a clash between the power of eminent domain and state sovereign immunity.
If the governor signs the bill into law, Arizona will become the 16th state to require a conviction for asset forfeiture.
A recent Century Foundation report highlights reasons why breaking down barriers to building new housing should appeal to left, right, and libertarians alike.
Los Angeles County, California, plans to return land unjustly seized from a black family in 1924.
The Massachusetts Congresswoman is a two-time supporter of the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act.
Fixing a calculation error in a leading academic article on the subject shows that zoning has a far bigger negative impact on the economy than was previously realized.
Economist Meir Kohn explains how kibbutz life helped him understand the flaws of socialism and the value of property rights.
My article considers the implications of a major takings case currently before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will decide if the rule violates property rights.
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.
This is the third court to rule that the moratorium is illegal. Two decisions have upheld it.
Plus: Mexico moves closer to legalizing marijuana, Facebook fights monopoly allegations, and more...
