Yes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Banks v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, No. 25-1833 (Apr. 28, 2026) is unpublished, and we usually don’t cover unpublished opinions. But we put aside our usual reluctance to discuss unpublished work because the decision raises an important point: are the rules in “regulatory” takings only applicable when the government has adopted a regulation?
Continue Reading CA6: To Be A Regulatory Taking, There Must Be A Regulation
Check this out a newly-filed complaint, filed in a New York federal court, challenging New York’s ban on hydraulic fracking as a taking. Our firm represents the plaintiffs, so we won’t be saying much here. But we will point out that this one is very much like the O.G. modern takings case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
Continue Reading New Complaint: NY’s Fracking Ban Is A Penn Coal v. Mahon Taking
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. After a loss at the Eighth Circuit, the property owners have filed a cert petition.
This is the case where court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the city’s “blighted list” was not a regulatory taking. The city had issued citations for various code violations, sent compliance orders, and was apparently reacting to a fire on the premises.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Invoking “Police Power” Alone Doesn’t Avoid Takings
Here’s a recent cert petition involving an allegation that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), through what is called a “reinsurance” program, requires group health plans “to fork over $10 billion in plan assets.” Pet. at 1. The Federal Circuit held that this wasn’t a taking, merely an “obligation to pay money” and thus the plaintiffs lacked a private property interest. Money isn’t property, right?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Obamacare Reinsurance Requirement Is A Taking
Check this out. A new cert petition on an issue we think is a good one. Let’s just cut to the chase (you can read the petition for the background). Here are the Questions Presented: Whether an approved vesting tentative map which conferred a statutory vested right to finalize a subdivision upon substantial compliance with the conditions of approval is property protected by the Takings Clause?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is A Vested Permit A Separate “Stick” Of Private Property?
Check this out. A student-authored case summary from the latest edition of the Harvard Law Review, commenting on Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners, an Eleventh Circuit case we designated as an honorable mention in 2025’s highlights. The Fulton panel split 2-1 (and we understand that the case is pending a decision on the County’s en banc petition), with the majority addressing the issue the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): do you need Congress’s ok to sue for just compensation for a taking?
Continue Reading Harvard Law Review Recent Case Summary: Eleventh Circuit Used A “Novel” Remedies Test To Hold The Just Compensation Clause Is Self-Executing
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
Here are a three upcoming state-based eminent domain conferences, brought to you by CLE International: California, Texas, and Virginia.
Continue Reading Register Now For State Eminent Domain Conferences (California, Texas, Virginia)
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