A lower court decision the Supreme Court is currently considering reviewing has important - and dangerous - implications for property rights.
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.
Texas Court Rules Deliberate Flooding of Private Property by State Government in Wake of Hurricane Harvey can be a Taking
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.
Will Supreme Court Reargument of the Knick Takings Case Come Down to the Federal Government's "Klingon Forehead" Argument?
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.
Thoughts on Today's Supreme Court Oral Argument in Knick v. Township of Scott—A Crucial Property Rights Case
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.
My Wall Street Journal Op Ed on Important Property Rights Case that Will be Argued before the Supreme Court Tomorrow
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.
Yet Another Federal Court Rejects Claims that Exposing Taxis to Competition from Uber and Lyft is a Taking
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 Unknown History of State Constitutional Prohibitions on Government Actions that "Damage" Property without Compensation
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.
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.
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 state court ruling also concluded the taking violates the state constitution because it is for a forbidden "private use," rather than a public one.
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
Exposing Taxis to Competition from Uber and Lyft Is Not a Taking that Requires Compensation Under the Constitution
A federal court correctly rejects a dubious takings claim by Philadelphia cab companies.
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.