In an earlier post, we covered the highlights of 2025.

There are quite a lot to choose from, but here’s our curated list of the year’s lowlights. As in our highlight list, we’re affirmatively omitting cases in which we had a hand.

Here we go:

Cert Denial of the Year: GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angles, No. 24-435 (U.S. June 30, 2025). We include this one because there’s a clear circuit split, and the lower courts’ misapplication of the Yee theory (forbidding or delaying a lessor from recovering possession should not be analyzed as a physical invasion taking, but is treated as a mere regulation on use because the lessor voluntarily opened the property to the offender) continues, mostly because the Supreme Court hasn’t acted.

Worst Regulatory Takings Case of the Year: Green Room LLC v. State of Wyoming, No. 24-853 (10th Cir. Oct. 27, 2025). No taking when government decided that previously legal hemp products were illegal. This makes our Number One not because we necessarily disagree with the outcome, but because to reach it the court held that personal property isn’t covered by the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause only covers real property — say what? Last time we checked, the text said “private property.”

Worst Fifth Amendment Section 1983 Case of the Year: the Tenth Circuit makes our naughty list again for Witherspoon v. Ince, No. 24-6194 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), because it held that a private party literally operating under the authority of state law is not acting “under color of law” because the complaint didn’t allege more than the defendants were private parties and failed to invoke the magic words. Inane pleading rules like this is not only silly, it wastes time, money, energy, and effort.

Worst (tie) Williamson County Resurrection of the Year (both Sixth Circuit): OPV  Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (6th Cir. July 9, 2025); Howard v. Macomb County, No. 24-1655 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025). The Supreme Court in Knick clearly held that to be ripe, a takings plaintiff doesn’t need to pursue, much less exhaust, state remedies. But despite that mandate, the Sixth Circuit seems stuck on the idea that there are other ways to skin the ripeness cat. That’s how much lower courts don’t want to deal with these type of cases.

(dis)Honorary Mention:  29 Greenwood, LLC v. City of Newton, No. 24-1518 (1st Cir. Feb. 4, 2025), where Retired Justice Breyer sitting by designation on the First Circuit abstained from considering a takings claim because land use is a “sensitive area” of local policy. Ah, the old “land use is beneath federal judges” trope. Perhaps Justice B is still burned by losing the argument in Knick?

Second (dis)Honorable Mention: Grand v. City of University Heights, No. 24-3876 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2026), where the court subjected a RLUIPA claim to Williamson County‘s “final decision” requirement because RLUIPA claims involve land use. The old “land use is a local thing” trope applied outside of takings.

Worst Eminent Domain (Public Use) Case of the Year: Muskingum County Convention Facilities Auth. v. Barnes Advertising Corp., No. CT2024-0134 (Ohio Ct. App. May 22, 2025). To satisfy the Public Use requirement, a condemnor need only cut-and-paste the statutory definition of public use. Taking for a “new facility serving … the community” is fine. We think this Texas court got the same issue right.

Worst Rent Control Case of the Year: Anaheim Mobile Estates, LLC v. State of California, No. G063421 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2025). A stark example of the analytical knots California courts will twist themselves into in order to avoid holding a rent control ordinance has legal problems.

(dis)Honorable Mention: Hudson Valley Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Kingston, No. 59 (N.Y. June 18, 2025). New York’s highest court held that a municipal declaration of a “housing emergency” empowers it to lower rents nunc pro tunc. Not only can rent control control the price, it can require a refund!

Happy new year, friends.