Check out this recently-filed cert petition, which might be filed under government “keepings” as well as takings.
In Greene v. Kansas Dep’t of Revenue, 576 P.3d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that the Department didn’t owe just compensation after it seized some of Greene’s property (the petition and the lower court’s opinion don’t really say what this property is, but we can presume it is some of the “potpourri substance named ‘Diablo’ that the Kansas Board of Pharmacy had deemed a controlled substance” that was at the heart of the tax dispute. See slip op. at 3.
This property was seized, but not returned to Greene until he sued. At that point, “[r]espondents immediately returned the property in October of 2023, but the damage was already done.” Pet. at 4. The Kansas court of appeals rejected Greene’s takings claim, concluding that “[t]o succeed on the merits, the Greenes must have alleged conduct that is a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment. But the conduct alleged in the Greenes’ Fifth Amendment claim only relates to a tax assessment. A prior panel of this court has held a tax assessment is not a taking. Board of Douglas County Comm’rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App.2d 532, Syl. ¶ 16, 933 P.2d 167 (1997).”). Slip op. at 10.
Here’s the Question Presented by the petition:
When a taking occurs subject to legal authority which is later struck down, does retention of the property without due process in and of itself violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Follow along here or on the Court’s docket.