Here’s some of the things we’re reading or reviewing today, focused on the legal scholars and takings (with the last one being of general interest):
- Michael Pollack, Taking Data, 86 U. Chi. L. Rev. ___ (2018) (“This Article proposes a new approach to regulating government investigations of data that has been shared with ISPs — one that is inspired by a legal tool that is designed to achieve the very balance between public benefits and private burdens that has thus far proven elusive. This tool is the Takings Clause.”).
- Meron Werkneh, Retaking Mecca: Healing Harlem through Restorative Just Compensation, 51 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Probs, 225 (2018) (just compensation does not account for “the loss of the community as a unit, or the dignitary harm suffered due to forcible displacements in the name of ‘revitalization.'”).
- Katrina M. Wyman, Limiting the National Right to Exclude, 72 U. Miami L. Rev. 425 (2018) (looking at the right to exclude as it may apply to nations and climate change, an whether it can lead to open borders) (reviewed by Professor Carol Necole Brown).
- Jimmy Montelongo, Drones, Airspace, & Private Property Rights, Nw. U. L. Rev. Online (2018) (“When it comes to flying drones, the issue of property rights to low-altitude airspace above privately owned property is murky.”).
- Jennifer Hernandez, California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California’s Housing Crisis, 24 Hast. Env. L. J. 21 (2018) (summarized by Prof. Stephen Miller: “In other words, while CEQA remains an important and vital environmental tool, it has also become a tool abused to make urban housing projects–the kind needed to address the housing crisis–expensive and time-consuming to entitle even when no lawsuit is filed. Several important charts from Hernandez’s article are reproduced below, and tell a remarkable story.”).
- Adam Kolber, Introduction to Judicial Bullshit, ProfsBlawg (referencing his just-published article “Supreme Judicial Bullshit” (has there ever been a better Law Review title?) (“While we have come to expect bullshit from politicians, there is no shortage of judicial bullshit either. After discussing Harry Frankfurt’s famous description of bullshit, I illustrate possible instances of judicial bullshit in a wide range of bioethics cases, mostly at the Supreme Court.”
And no, we are not reading all of these today, but we have read some of them, and are adding the others to our queue.