Here’s the Virginia Supreme Court’s order (over vociferous dissents) extending a ban on state courts issuing writs of eviction and processing unlawful detainer (eviction) proceedings:
“Effective August 10,2020, and through September 7,2020, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330, the issuance of writs of eviction pursuant to unlawful detainer actions is suspended and continued. However, this suspension and continuation shall not apply to writs of eviction in unlawful detainer actions that are unrelated to the failure to pay rent.”
Order at 2.
Remind us again why there’s no such thing as a “judicial taking?”
As if the dissenters are reading our minds, you should jump forward to page 12 of the dissent by Justice Kelsey (joined by Chief Justice Lemons and Justice Chafin), who focus on the takings issues:
Next, prohibiting the issuance of a writ of eviction to a landlord with an unlawful detainer judgment arguably sanctions a continuing trespass on the landlord’s property. A landlord who sees it this way should have a chance to address whether the ex parte order constitutes a de facto temporary taking of his properties that is subject to the order and, if so, whether such a taking entitles that landlord to just compensation. That is a serious issue. “If a legislature or a court declares that what was once an established right ofprivate property no longer exists, it has taken that property, no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation. ‘[A] State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation. ‘” Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 560 U.S. 702, 715 (2010) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
It is no answer to say the taking is merely temporary. ‘”[T]emporary’ takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation.” First Eng. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cnty., 482 U.S. 304, 318 (1987). “Once the government’s actions have worked a taking of property, ‘no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective.” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm ‘n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 33 (2012) (citation omitted). We stated the point plainly in Anderson v. Chesapeake Ferry Co., which held that “[t]he fact that the taking is temporary does not require just compensation for the taking to be based on new principles. As just compensation for a permanent taking is fair market value, so just compensation for temporary taking can only be a fair rental value.” 186 Va. 481,492 (1947). See generally Va. Const. art. I, § 11 (“No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof.”).
Dissent at 12-13.