2009

Willets Point United has filed an amicus brief supporting their fellow New York City property owners in the public use case now pending in the New York Court of Appeals regarding the Atlantic Yards “redevelopment” project in Brooklyn, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. As we noted here, Willets Point is…

Justice Stevens’ majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) held the government’s public use determination isoff-limits if thedetermination was the result of a “comprehensive plan,” regardless ofwhether than plan has any realistic chance of actually beingaccomplished. Thus, property owners can be forcibly dispossessed of their homes based merely…

What we’re reading today:

…

In United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 848 v. National Labor Relations Bd., 540 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that six rules applied by shopping centers to restrict picketing andhandbilling by union members violated the state constitution’s freespeech clause, and therefore impermissibly interfered with protectedunion activity. We summarized the Ninth Circuit’s decision here.

The shopping center owner has filed a cert petition asking the Court to review these Questions Presented:

In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), this Court held that states may require private shopping malls to grant third parties access to the malls’ common areas for purposes of engaging in certain expressive activity. The third-party activity at issue in PruneYard – solicitation of signatures on a political petition – was in support of a cause that the mall did not oppose and that did not conflict with the mall’s commercial interests. The present case raises the following questions, unanswered by PruneYard:

1. Does a state law requirement that a private shopping mall provide third parties access to the mall for expressive activity violate the shopping mall’s property rights under the Fifth Amendment where the activity – here, urging patrons to boycott the mall and its stores – conflicts with the mall’s commercial interests?

2. Does a state law requirement that a private shopping mall provide third parties access to the mall for expressive activity violate the shopping mall’s First Amendment free speech rights where the expressive activity is in support of a cause opposed by the mall?

The case is now titled Macerich Management Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 568, No. 09-235 (cert. petition filed Aug. 24, 2009). The case’s docket entry is here.Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Requiring Shopping Centers To Allow Adverse Speech A Taking?

In a case that’s highly topical given the current health care debate, in Franklin Memorial Hospital v. Harvey, No. 08-2550 (Aug. 5, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Maine’s requirement that hospitals provide free medical services to certain low income patients is not a regulatory taking.

The not-for-profit…

The New York Times‘ Greenwire blog posts Property Rights Groups Assemble Support in Regulatory Takings Case, about amici support in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009).

Property rights groups are lining up in support of private waterfront landowners in Florida…

The recording of the oral argument in Dupree v. Hiraga, No 29464 has been posted. It is available here (caution, massive 34mb mp3 download). (Oral arguments in Hawaii’s appellate courts are not reduced to a written transcript, and the electronic recordings are the only record of arguments.)

The appeal concerns whether the State Board …

Confirming that Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009) is shaping up to be one of the most interesting cases in the Supreme Court’s term, even more amici briefs are coming in supporting the petitioner/property owners.

In an earlier post, we noted…