Yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In this order the U.S. Supreme Court denied review to a case that we’ve long been following, which challenged aspects of New York’s draconian rent control laws as a taking, 74 Pinehurst v. New York.
We say the “other shoe” because ever since the Court denied review months
Today’s the day, 191 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 one in their Con Law classes, and it
If you dream such dreams as this photo, read on.
My law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, is on the hunt for lawyer to join our Property Rights group (yours truly is the Director of Property Rights Litigation, so you will be working with me and the other takings and con law mavens in our practice).
One week ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Devillier v. Texas.
We wrote up our thoughts in this post, “Rogue States: Today’s Argument In Devillier v. Texas – ‘Aren’t the Courts supposed to do something’ About Violations Of The Constitution?,” and now bring you other reports:
Don’t miss out!
We promise: this is the last time we’re going to try to entice you to the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in New Orleans. We are getting close to capacity, but there is still room. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and
We’d guess that most people, if asked whether the courts can “do something” when the government acts beyond the authority delegated to it in the Constitution, would respond that “doing something” is exactly what courts are for.
Bottom Line Up Front
And that is what drives our BLUF on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in
“No need to ask, he’s a smooth operator…”
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case we’ve been following closely because it involves the fundamental limitation on the sovereign power to take private property. In our system, the sovereign indeed has the power to take private property against the
Here is a collection of commentary on the oral arguments in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, heard by the Supreme Court earlier this week. (Our own thoughts here.)
If you were looking for deep clarity from the Justices about land use law and whether a legislature imposing monetary conditions on property development always gets the free judicial pass of rational basis review in this morning’s oral arguments in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, you may not discover a lot of predictive
Get ready for Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, the “legislative exactions” case at the Supreme Court. [Disclosure: this is one of our firm’s cases, so we won’t be doing an analysis here. Besides, you already know where we stand on the issue.]