Update: More thoughts here, after having heard the argument recording, available here:
Here’s the transcript from today’s oral arguments in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173. That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an
The Urban Lawyer, the law review produced by the ABA Section of State & Local Goverment Law has published my article Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings, 45 Urban Lawyer 769 (2013).
Here’s the Introduction to the article:
THE SUPREME COURT’S 2012 TERM promised to be a banner year in regulatory takings law, with
In Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. United States, No. 21013-5012 (Dec. 11, 2013), the Federal Circuit concluded that the government is not liable for a physical invasion taking when a dam enlargement project raised the maximum flood line on the plaintiff’s land by 10 feet, because there has yet to be an actual physical
Just in: the Federal Circuit today issued an opinion in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 2009-5121 (Dec. 3, 2013), concluding that the government must pay just compensation for a taking, because it caused the Commission’s land to be flooded.
This is the case that was up before the U.S. Supreme
Here’s the government’s Brief in Opposition in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petition filed June 3, 2013.
In that case, the Federal Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, held that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central ad hoc takings test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the
Here are the final two amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute. As our
Here are two more amici briefs supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute.
Here’s the amici brief of Pacific Legal Foundation and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute.
As we’ve explained, although this case is a quiet title action out of a Colorado U.S. District Court, it could have huge implications for rails-to-trails takings cases in the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The issue is whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued railroad patents, or whether these grants were subject only to a railroad easement. The difference is that easements may be extinguished, while reversionary interests cannot.
The Tenth Circuit, in contrast to other courts, held that the right of way is subject to an implied reversionary interest in favor of the United States, meaning that the property owner doesn’t have “property” that was taken when the railroad was abandoned and was turned into a recreational trail. The merits brief of the petitioners is posted here.
We filed an amicus brief in the case, available here.
The PLF/CCJ brief argues:
This case raises important questions regarding the common law system of property ownership and the certainty of titles in property.
…
In the decision below, however, the Tenth Circuit repudiated the common law rules of property ownership in favor of a per se rule, holding that the United States—the original grantor of the railroad easement and the Brandts’ fee estate—will retain an “implied reversionary interest” in an 1875 Act right-of-way, even after the government patents the underlying land and conveys it to a private party without any express reservation of reversionary rights. … The decision below extended the Tenth Circuit’s rule, holding that all private landowners whose titles are traceable to a federal land patent will be subject to the government’s unexpressed reservation of a reversionary interest in a railroad right-of-way, regardless of the rights and expectations established by their titles.
…
If not reversed, the Tenth Circuit’s rule will unsettle the rights and expectations of tens of thousands of landowners across the nation. … Amici urge this Court to reverse the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in this case and to reaffirm the fundamental common law principle that ownership of land will be determined by title, not implication.
More background on the case in a piece in Jurist by PLF’s Brian T. Hodges, “Brandt v. US: Should the Common Law of Propert be Scrapped?”
Here’s the amici brief we are filing (along with our firm colleagues Mark Murakami and Bethany Ace) in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2013). That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as
Hey, that rhymes! Today, in a not-entirely-unexpected move, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and agreed to review United States v. Brandt Revocable Trust, No. 09-8047 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 11, 2012).
We say not-unexpected for two reasons. First, the Tenth Circuit expressly noted its ruling created a circuit split (that’s catnip to counsel considering