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.
The decision distinguishes US Supreme Court cases allowing the government to transfer property from one private party to another for almost any "public purpose."
Gun opponents would leave predatory cops armed and their victims helpless.
I debated Prof. F.E. Guerra-Pujol. Prominent takings lawyer Robert Thomas moderated.
It depends, whether as to looting or other threats to property.
In Timbs v. Indiana, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to state asset forfeiture seizures. But key issues were left for lower courts to resolve.
Indiana is still fighting to keep Tyson Timbs' SUV seven years after it first seized the car, but for now, it's back in Timbs' driveway.
Joshua and Emily Killeen are suing Yavapai County, Arizona, for what they claim are unconstitutional restrictions on their ability to advertise their business and host events on their rural property.
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.
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.
Yes, tenants are losing their jobs because of the COVID-19 shutdown, but forcing businesses to provide services for free would have a ripple effect.
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 Chinese Communist Party confiscated a sacred meteorite from Muslim herders. They're suing to get it back.
Gil Cedillo, city councilmember, has introduced a motion asking the city to study its options for seizing the 124-unit Hillside Villa.
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
![featurespace | Shutterstock [detail]](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c331x186-w331-q60/uploads/2019/12/featurespace-331x186.jpg)
Many jurisdictions are alleviating housing shortgages by cutting back on zoning. Unfortunately, there is also a trend towards expanding rent control, which is likely to have the opposite effect.
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 Institute for Justice asks the Supreme Court to block sneaky tactics that prevent victims of property grabs from recovering their legal costs.
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
The bill, which the state House passed yesterday, says police may seize vehicles in which they find untaxed vaping products.
"You have a situation where a person owed $8 and lost their house. I mean, how is that equitable?" asked Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard Bernstein.
A state law allows counties to effectively steal homes over unpaid taxes and keep the excess revenue for their own budgets.
What happens when preservationists get in the way of a diner owner who is looking to sell his place, retire, and pocket the cash?
The ruling is a continuation of the same case in which the federal Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is "incorporated" against state governments and applies to asset forfeitures.
The ruling has considerable backing from precedent. But it is nonetheless based on a deeply flawed doctrine.
The Drone Integration and Zoning Act seeks to expand private property rights and give localities more say in airspace regulation.
NIMBYs can keep their views. They just have to pay for them.
Miami Beach's crackdown on Airbnb is "in jarring conflict" with a state law capping municipal fines at $1,000 per day, Judge Michael Hanzman ruled.
The Minneapolis city council just made the rental business a lot riskier for property owners.
The article is now available for free on SSRN.
Trump is just who he said he'd be four years ago. By rallying around him, Republicans are choosing to brand themselves in his image.
California public accommodations law has been read as banning discrimination based on "political affiliation," but the court concluded that this didn't apply to discrimination based on "political views" more broadly (or based on votes as an elected official).
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.
There’s no need to pit property owners against imperiled species.
The concerns I expressed about her record on property rights when I testified at her 2009 confirmation hearing were justified. But she has compiled an admirable record on several other issues.
