An interesting one from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, No. 19-449 (June 5, 2026), is the latest in a string of decisions on the “bump stock” issue. You remember the issue: a “bump stock” is a device you can attach to a semi-automatic rifle to make it fire rapidly like a fully-automatic rifle.
Continue Reading CFC: Govt Ordering Destruction Of Bump Stocks Could Be A Physical Taking, But Not Exactly An Exaction
You remember when the Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss a takings claim and issued a very readable opinion rejecting the argument that oysters planted on submerged land leased from Louisiana are not “private property.” The CFC opinion held that “plaintiffs have all three essential features of the ‘bundle of rights’ commonly characterized as ‘property’ under Louisiana law.” But like all court orders made before entry of final judgment, the CFC’s opinion was interlocutory. Meaning subject to change. And change it did.
Continue Reading Aw Shucks: CAFED Agrees That Oysters Destroyed By Govt Aren’t Private Property
Programming note: On the weekend we’ve set aside to remember our nation’s war dead, we thought we’d repost this one, about how Arlington National Cemetery came to be. And yes, there’s a takings story there.
Continue Reading Memorial Day 2026: Arlington National Cemetery And 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
An interesting one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Ligado Networks, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1792 (Mar. 9, 2026). In an unsigned opinion, the court held that it couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license because the parties had not adequately briefed the argument that a federal statute created a private property right.
Continue Reading CAFED: We Can’t Tell Whether There’s Been A Physical Taking, Because You Haven’t Explained Well Enough What Property Interest You Have In Using Radio Frequencies
In an earlier post (“CAFED: Like We Said Before, “Inevitably Recurring” Flooding Is A Taking“), we covered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Alban v. United States, No. 23-1363 (Dec. 22, 2025), which held that the failure of the Corps of Engineers to properly operate two
Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.
In Alban v. United States, No. 23-1363 (Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’s judgment concluding that the failure of the Corps of Engineers to properly operate two dams, which resulted in upstream
The caption of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. United States, No. 24-1241 (Oct. 21, 2025), and the fact that the plaintiff raised a takings claim, should give you some idea where this is heading.
After all, when the defendant in a takings claim
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
The federal government has asked (and been granted), an extension of time in which to file a cert petition in the Darby case.
That’s the one in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed a claim that the federal government is
Here’s one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involving ERISA (yikes!), which is the comprehensive federal regulatory framework for employer-provided pension plans, and takings.
In King v. United States, No. 23-1956 (Aug. 8, 2025), pensioners challenged Congress’s 2014 reduction of benefits as a taking, alleging both physical and regulatory theories.