Appellate law

Here’s a bit passed on to us from a colleague who reads USA Today. Leading off “Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives’ hopes, liberals’ fears in first year on Supreme Court,” is this snippet, which points out a Just Compensation case in which we represented the (denied) petitioner:

WASHINGTON – Neil Gorsuch had been a member of the Supreme Court for exactly 11 weeks when he made clear in a single day what type of justice he would be.

The court struck down an Arkansas law that treated same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples on their children’s birth certificates. Gorsuch dissented. 

The court refused to consider a challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ system for evaluating disability claims. Gorsuch dissented.

The court declined to hear a challenge to a California law limiting who can carry a concealed gun in public. Gorsuch dissented.

And the court turned aside a challenge to the meager sum Mississippi paid when it converted a former landowner’s property into a park. Gorsuch said the justices should hear a similar case “at its next opportunity.”

Thus it was that on the last day of its 2016-17 term — as the court addressed gay rights, government power, gun ownership and government takings — Neil McGill Gorsuch announced to the legal world that he would not go along to get along.

“He came to the court more ready to jump into the deep end than a lot of recent nominees,” says Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Here’s why

we thought the denial of cert in that case (and others) wasn’t necessarily a bad sign.
Continue Reading USA Today Notes Just Comp An Area Where Justice Gorsuch “Jumping Into The Deep End”

Here’s what we’re reading this Thursday:

Cert(s) Denied

  • Brott v. United States, No. 17-712. This one was disappointing, but, I suppose, not surprising given that it would have upset current practice, no matter how unconstitutional that practice is. This is the case which challenged the takings-claims-against-the-feds-over-$10k-must-go-to-the-CFC-with-no-jury scheme. We did a brief in support. 

…

Remember the Tom Cruise/Steven Spielberg flick Minority Report? That’s the one based on Philip K. Dick’s short story in which the police force’s PreCrime unit can presage that a citizen will violate the law in the future, so they arrest him now even though he has committed no crime. 

That’s the same vibe we…

Emotionheader

Here’s the printable brochure with the details on the 32nd Annual Land Use Institute in Detroit, April 19-20, 2018. We’ve plugged the program before so we won’t do so again, except to say that you really should attend because (1) it’s a very good program that won’t take much of your time (fly in for …

For those of you who have not recently attended the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (just wrapped in Charleston, planning Palm Springs 2019), here’s a small sampling of the kind of thing we do.

It’s U. Virginia lawprof Molly Brady talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s regulatory takings decision in…

Here’s the Reply Brief in a case we’ve been following, Brott v. United States, No. 17-712, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III forum, and to have the issues determined by a jury. …

The last time the U.S. Supreme Court faced Williamson County in a merits case, the property owners made the mistake of not challenging that case’s “state procedures” requirement directly. An exchange with Justice O’Connor went like this; from the transcript:

Justice O’Connor: And you haven’t asked us to revisit that Williamson County case, have…