Regulatory takings

Although Knick knocked out the Supreme Court-created requirement that before an owner may assert a takings claim, he must first effectively exhaust available state procedures for obtaining compensation, it left the other ripeness requirement — that the government has made a “final decision” applying the challenged law to the owner — in place. Despite the Supreme Court in Pakdel noting that the final decision rule is a “relatively modest” requirement and does not require exhaustion of remedies (administrative or otherwise), some lower courts refuse to accept the message. Well here’s one that not only gets its wrong, it gets it seriously wrong.
Continue Reading Say What? CA4: Takings Claim Not Ripe Because Owner Could Always Change The Law

Today’s the day, 193 years ago, when — a mere 5 days after oral arguments — the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous opinion in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).

Generations of law students study this decision in their Con Law classes, and it is mostly known as the case in which the Court held that the Bill of Rights limits only the federal government and does not limit the power of states. For the latter, one must look to state constitutions.…

Continue Reading (Unhappy) 193d Birthday To Barron v. Baltimore, SCOTUS’s First Takings Case

We’re spending the day at the alma mater, talking alongside some of the luminaries in the field (lawprofs Thomas Mitchell, Henry Smith, John Inafranca, Thomas Merrill, and Pamela Sameulson, among others) about our favorite topics: dirt law and property rights. This is the “Future of Property Rights” Conference that we mentioned not long ago at the University of Hawaii Law School. …
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School

Be sure to check out the North Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in LDI Shallotte 197 Holdings, LLC v. North Carolina, No. COA24-443 (Jan. 21, 2026), where the court held the plaintiff’s allegation that a two-year delay in the State issuing a permit adequately pleaded a temporary taking claim. The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint. …
Continue Reading NC App: Two-Year Permit Delay Could Be A Temporary Taking

In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking. …
Continue Reading CA6: Denial Of Rezoning Is Not A Penn Central Taking

Check this out, a new complaint, filed this week in a federal court in California.

[We won’t be offering all that much comment on this because it is one of ours.]

This a takings challenge to a California statute which establishes a purported 3,200-foot safety zone around “sensitive receptors” that “prohibits the drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet
of “sensitive receptors,” which includes most places where the public works, lives, and plays.” Complaint at 1.
Continue Reading There Will Be Takings: New Complaint Challenging California’s “Sensitive Receptor” Setback Statute

If you are still looking for a reason to head to the 808 next month, here it is. The 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, February 13, 2026 at the University of Hawaii School of Law.
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School, Feb 13, 2026 (Live & Webcast)

The view from the podium

That’s right. More than 300 of the nation’s best eminent domain lawyers, judges, appraisers, right-of-way agents, scholars, and other industry professionals are in Savannah for the next two and a half days for what is now known as the American Law Institute (“ALI” alone, no longer with the “-CLE” addition)…