A N.Y. court applies a "best for all concerned" standard to hold that the employer (which owns the dog) can't get the dog back from the ex-employee with whom the dog worked and lived.
As in many previous cases, government officials promised huge economic gains from seizing property for transfer to private interests - but failed to deliver.
The Institute for Justice wants the Supreme Court to rule that the Fifth Amendment requires a prompt post-seizure hearing.
Government bullies empowered by civil forfeiture laws often back down, but only when their victims can afford a fight.
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.
Libertarianism is far from wildly popular, overall. But libertarian causes have done well in referenda in recent years. We can build on that.
The most expensive ballot initiative campaign in Massachusetts history ended with a resounding victory for property rights.
Beneficial outcomes on at least three of four important California ballot measures: racial preferences, rent control, and protecting ride-share businesses and workers.
These votes could have a big impact on the nation as a whole, as well as California.
Both candidates have serious flaws. But a Trump victory would be a much greater evil than the alternative.
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.
Plaintiffs allege that Seattle affirmatively supported the Capitol Hill Occupying Protest (rather than just declining to stop it).
The pope conveniently forgets that as a property-rights-based market economy has expanded, grueling poverty has receded worldwide.
Gerardo Serrano, whose truck was seized over five forgotten handgun rounds, waited two years for a hearing he never actually got.
Shopping at Target. Dining outdoors. No activity these days is too mundane for protesters to shout at you for it.
Sadly, he's far from the only one. If we want to "break the wheel" of poverty and housing shortages, we need to roll back zoning.
It is one thing to peacefully march against injustice, and quite another to burn down what others built up.
Walter Barnette didn't know that his own land had been sold out from under him until it had already happened.
A new lawsuit argues that the city and state's eviction bans are an unconstitutional impairment of contracts unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's a power grab that could undermine federalism and separation of powers, and imperil property rights.
The lawsuit argues that the DEA is violating the Fourth Amendment by seizing money from travelers without evidence of criminal activity.
The cops seized Kevin McBride's $15,000 car because his girlfriend allegedly used it for a $25 marijuana sale.
Kevin McBride argues that Arizona's civil forfeiture law is unconstitutional.
After failing at the one thing people think they need from government, Minneapolis is getting tough on making damaged citizens pay up.
Like other innocent owners, Manni Munir finds that fighting a civil forfeiture can cost more than the property is worth.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey's justification for brandishing their guns depends on facts, not ideology.
Officials in Oakland County, Michigan, are worried they could be on the hook for more than $30 million in payments to former homeowners victimized by an aggressive forfeiture scheme.
The Court unanimously ruled such a tax "forfeiture" qualifies as a taking for which compensation must be paid.
Uri Rafaeli was one of hundreds of Michigan homeowners to be victimized by the state's overly aggressive property tax forfeiture law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejects a procedural trick used by FERC to avoid judicial review.
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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks