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.
Forthcoming Article on "Overturning a Catch-22 in the Knick of Time: Knick v. Township of Scott and the Doctrine of Precedent"
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
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.
Institute for Justice Takes up Case where Federal Court Ruled Government Owes no Compensation to Innocent Property Owner Whose House was Destroyed By Police
The prominent libertarian public interest firm hopes to get the decision reversed, possibly by the Supreme Court.
Federal Court Rules there is no Taking if the Police Destroy an Innocent Person's House During a Law Enforcement Operation
The ruling has considerable backing from precedent. But it is nonetheless based on a deeply flawed doctrine.
Cops Destroyed This House To Arrest a Shoplifter. A Federal Court Says Police Don't Have To Pay for the Damage.
Are there any limits to what police can do in pursuit of a suspect? The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals apparently doesn't think so.
My New Article on the Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Knick v. Township of Scott—an Important Takings Case
The article is now available for free on SSRN.
The City Wants to Evict This Family Because a House Guest Committed a Crime They Didn't Know About Somewhere Else
Under its "crime-free housing program," Granite City, Illinois, holds tenants strictly liable for illegal activity by a household member.
Lawsuit Challenges Ordinance Requiring Eviction of Entire "Household" if One Member Has Committed a Crime
The case was brought on the family's behalf by the Institute for Justice, a prominent public interest law firm.
The City of Baltimore has dropped its attempt to use eminent domain to take the Preakness Stakes Horse Race. But questions linger about the city's willingness to continue to use the threat of condemnation to force Preakness and other commercial enterprises to stay in the city.
Supreme Court Overrules Precedent that Created "Catch-22" for Property Owners Attempting to Bring Takings Cases in Federal Court
The close 5-4 ruling is an important victory for constitutional property rights.
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.