A recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article describes the travails of a man and his family who have waited eight years for a kidney transplant. Such needless pain could be eliminated by legalizing organ markets.
Fourteen years after the notorious Kelo case, the state where the case originated still has one of the nation's weakest eminent domain reform laws. A bill currently before the state legislature could change that.
And the Pennsylvania state lawmaker who wrote the law is now the judge who hears a lot of the cases.
My testimony addressed the general problem of asset forfeiture, the potential impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Timbs v. Indiana, and Arkansas' recent reform law.
The condemnation is legally dubious. And even if the city prevails in court, it is likely to come out a loser. Baltimore should listen to naysayers who advise letting the neighsayers move to another location.
California man highlights the absurdity of dumb regulations.
How the overwhelming vote against Trump's position could potentially affect the lawsuits challenging the legality of the declaration.
"What a betrayal of conservative principles this is," Sen. Michael Bennet says.
The decision in Timbs v. Indiana is a significant step forward for property rights and civil liberties, though a key issue remains to be resolved by lower courts.
A win for private property rights, and a defeat for proponents of eminent domain.
The court concluded that property may only be condemned for projects that will proceed in "the reasonably foreseeable future."
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
The op ed describes the extensive harm likely to be caused by condemning the large amounts of private property that would need to be seized to build the wall.
Some members of Congress still care about private property.
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 bill would likely stop Trump from using the "military version of eminent domain."
NYC's mayor takes on private property (again).
Can Trump really exploit emergency powers to use eminent domain to build his wall without additional congressional authorization? If he succeeds, conservatives are likely to regret the precedent he sets.
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.
Whatever it is, it can't be good.
New analysis finds that thousands more die every year because the law forbids purchase of the kidneys they need to survive.
Reforms in multiple jurisdictions could help loosen restrictions on development that infringe on property rights, inflate housing prices, and cut off large numbers of people from job opportunities.
And there's nothing the town can do to stop him.
Zoning rules that severely restrict home construction cut off millions of poor people from jobs and affordable housing. The Minneapolis reform is the most extensive reduction in zoning achieved by any major American city in a long time.
Institute for Justice to city: Show probable cause, guys.
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.
"I'm not asking for money or a tax rebate," says Nancy Bass Wyden. "Just leave me alone."
The Court seems very likely to rule that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to state governments, and that at least some asset forfeitures violate the Clause. Potentially a big win for property rights and civil liberties.
The factory stands on land seized in a taking that forcibly displaced over 4000 people, and attracted widespread widespread opposition. The lessons and legacy of the Poletown case remain relevant today.
The case both addresses important legal issues, and could have substantial practical implications.
There's no reason to celebrate collective ownership.
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.
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