One week ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Devillier v. Texas.

We wrote up our thoughts in this post, “Rogue States: Today’s Argument In Devillier v. Texas – ‘Aren’t the Courts supposed to do something’ About Violations Of The Constitution?,” and now bring you other reports:

• Niina H. Farah, “Supreme Court leans toward landowners in Texas flooding case” (Politico E&E News) (we were quoted in this piece: “Robert Thomas, director of property rights litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said critiques of Texas appeared to cut across the ideological spectrum on the court. ‘Even those justices who you might not usually think of as viewing property rights favorably, they didn’t seem to appreciate what I would call the gamesmanship [from Texas],’ said Thomas, who wrote a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court in support of landowners.).
• Lydia Wheeler,

…
Continue Reading Devillier Oral Argument Round-Up

We’d guess that most people, if asked whether the courts can “do something” when the government acts beyond the authority delegated to it in the Constitution, would respond that “doing something” is exactly what courts are for. 

Bottom Line Up Front

And that is what drives our BLUF on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Devillier v. Texas: we’re predicting that the property owner’s arguments in will convince a majority of the Justices, and that the Court will answer the Question Presented with a “yes” –

May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

Courts Exist to “Do Something” When Government Violates Rights, Right?

Justice Kagan, as if often the case, drove right to the heart of the matter. For the “money quote” in the transcript or…

Continue Reading Rogue States: Today’s Argument In Devillier v. Texas – “Aren’t the Courts supposed to do something” About Violations Of The Constitution?