Here are the cases and other materials we discussed in today’s Section of State & Local Government Law Land Use group meeting on takings:
- By The Thinnest Of Margins, SCOTUS Declines Public Use Pretext “Spite Taking” Case
- SCOTUS Declines To Review NYC Rent Control Challenge
- Sheetz pt. I – “Radical Agreement” At SCOTUS: “Your Money Or Your Rights” Isn’t OK Just Because A Legislature Does It
- In DeVillier v. Texas, The Winner Takes It All
- Unanimous SCOTUS: “state law cannot be the only source” Of Property Rights, And “traditional property law principles” As Enforced By The Takings Clause Play A Role
- “Final decision” ripeness incentivizes government to be opaque, and avoid saying no.
- Texas takes a more practical (and realistic) approach to takings ripeness: City of Buda v. N.M. Edificios and City of Kemah v. Crow
- New Cert Petition: Does The Obligation To Provide Just Compensation Waive Sovereign Immunity?
- Inverse liability for wildfires?
- New Law Review Article: John Groen, “Takings, Original Meaning, and Applying Property Law Principles to Fix Penn Central,” 39 Touro L. Rev. 973 (2024)
- Yee v. Escondido and physical occupation takings lower court split: CA8: Yee v. Escondido Doesn’t Save Eviction Moratorium From Takings Review and CA9: No Physical Commandeering In Eviction Moratorium Because Yee Says “You Let The Tenants In, So You Can’t Complain About Keeping Them (For Free)”
- Florida Appeals Court: TDRs, Beekeeping, And Camping Are Not Economically-Beneficial Uses, So Downzoning Is A Lucas Taking
PS: If you are not a member of the Land Use group, you really should be. We summed up the reasons why here.