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.
The homeowner was working to preserve a historic building
A link to my review of an important new book on property rights by Cornell law Professor Gregory Alexander.
Gary and Matt Percy had to clear their land before they started planting. They neglected to get the government's permission.
No matter what California legislators or Elizabeth Warren think
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.
Plus: The Justice Department goes after "net neutrality" in California and SNL takes on Brett Kavanaugh.
The Supreme Court will rule on whether the Endangered Species Act has failed wildlife and private property owners alike.
Not only did Brian Esola make sure he wasn't violating the city code, he also checked with his neighbors beforehand.
The city's attempt to save the famed Showbox music venue has predictably resulted in a lawsuit.
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.
The family set up a mini-library-and got a visit from the police.
He deserves credit for being one of the very few national politicians to focus on this enormous problem. If enacted, his proposal would be a step in the right direction, though it is likely to have only a modest impact.
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.
If accepted by other courts, the judge's reasoning could curb a variety of other state and federal asset forfeiture policies that threaten the property rights of innocent people.
A new ruling says the city's civil forfeiture program violates the right to due process.
The eminent domain reform bill is the same legislation that has passed the House three previous times since 2005. Each time, it died in the Senate without ever coming to a vote.
Award-winning movie about Susette Kelo's attempt to save house from a local government gone klepto is out on streaming and video-on-demand services.
The Goldwater Institute filed three cases in California, Seattle, and Miami Beach to defend the rights of property owners against unfair home sharing laws.
The case will decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states. If so, it will also have to address how much it restricts asset forfeiture.
State and local officials are doling out $4.5 billion and 1,000 acres to lure the Taiwanese manufacturing giant.
Some pundits blamed the victim, but the attack that broke six of Paul's ribs was motivated by aesthetic rage, not some actual fault of Paul's.
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.
Developer claims politicians blocked their project to favor a crony who helps the politicians.
A bill would stop the use of private lawyers to try to force residents to pay massive fees for minor crimes.
Jeff Benedict, author of "Little Pink House," proposes that the City of New London return the land it condemned in the takings that led to the notorious Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
Pagedale, Missouri, will stop trying to fine you for having mismatched curtains or saggy pants.
A DC law bars property owners from redeveloping land containing a full-service gas station, or removing them to make way for other uses.
A California bill that would have greatly liberalized zoning rules failed in the state legislature. The defeat has implications for the broader struggle to expand housing and job opportunities for the poor.
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 story of how the government can take your home against your will.
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.
Now they're being sued for it.
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
Ricardo Palacios is fighting for his right to be left alone.
A municipal scheme with a private prosecution firm leads to outrageous fines in the California desert.
A federal court correctly rejects a dubious takings claim by Philadelphia cab companies.
Gorsuch advances another property rights theory of the Fourth Amendment that Alito rejects.
An already awful practice of trying to use code violations as a revenue stream gets truly grotesque.
Cited for building the treehouse without a proper permit, the family must now file for permits to tear it down.
By greatly reducing zoning restrictions on housing construction, Bill 827 could massively expand opportunity for large numbers of people.
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.
