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.
A new study of border takings under the 2006 Secure Fence Act finds that many owners get inadequate compensation, and that the condemnation process is flawed in other ways.
The North American Butterfly Association says Border Patrol agents have harassed employees and damaged property at the National Butterfly Center.
Property owners were ordered to pay thousands for violations unless they agreed to sell to a redeveloper.
The quick resolution of Phil Parhamovich's case shows once again that standing up to money-grabbing bullies can pay off.