Here's what we are reading (or listening to) this Tuesday:
- Richard Epstein's podcast on "Is it a Taking When the Government Floods Your House?" (Federalist Society)
- Teaching takings: Professor Stephen R. Miller on Contemporary Issues in Teaching Land Use: Question 8: Hot Topics in Takings (lawprof blawg)
- "Communist-run Cuba to recognize private property in new constitution" (Reuters)
- "What if You Owned a Beach but Weren't Allowed to Get to It?" asks the New York Times. The answer, it seems, is that you deserve it (a concept with which we have no beef), and therefore should get it for free. Call us crazy, but how about condemning and paying for an easement, including severance to the remainder...maybe that would work?
- "Careful Judge - That Condemnation is Constitutionally Protected" - our New York colleague Mike Rikon reminds us of a concept that is often overlooked: "A condemnation proceeding is not like private litigation. A condemnation claim is the enforcement of a constitutional mandate that just compensation be paid."
- Colleague Sheldon Gilbert has this tweetstorm on one of the more ridiculous applications of the "rational basis" test, one that came our way via a law review article from Professor Kanner. In short, space aliens might be responsible for legislation, and that's good enough under the RBT. Includes a link to the Ninth Circuit oral arguments.