If you’ve ever wondered where the odd, backwards syntax of the Takings/Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment comes from, look no further than this highlighted provision in the original 1215 Magna Carta. Written in medieval Latin (natch), the sentence structure is not the same as English (modern or Old).
Continue Reading Magna Carta Pilgrimage, Part Duo
We’re in England for the upcoming Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, and instead of heading directly to London from Heathrow, thought it would be a good time to take a short diversion to nearby Runnymede for what must be the O.G. Property Rights Pilgrimage (those visits we do from time to time to the actual sites of well-known cases).
Continue Reading Property Rights Pilgrimage, Runnymede Edition
Here’s one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joining the growing number of cases holding that government cannot satisfy due process with gestures that look like notice, but aren’t reasonably calculated to actually notify anyone. In Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts, No. 24-10748 (Aug. 17, 2026), the court concluded that although the ordinance which deems abandoned property forfeited if the government provides notice isn’t facially unconstitutional, the Clerk nonetheless failed to take step reasonably calculated to provide actual notice (the notices were published in a limited-circulation Spanish language newspaper), and thus any claim by the government to funds on deposit (but apparently abandoned) would be a taking.
Continue Reading CA11: County Can’t Treat Court Registry Funds As “Abandoned” Property When It Knows Notice Never Reached Owner
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Ramirez v. City of Texas City, No. 25-40475 (Sep. 3, 2026), in which the court concluded that a property owner raising a procedural due process claim properly invoked his right to have that claim tried by a jury.
Continue Reading CA5: Property Owner Properly Asked For Jury Trial, So He Gets One
Newly released: the Federalist Society’s “Courthouse Steps” series covers Pung v. Isabella County, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that “just compensation” for Tyler takings is usually measured by the surplus after a tax sale and not fair market value of the property, unless the tax sale process is unfair or skewed. Here’s
In Betts v Boone County, No. 25-1685 (June 15, 2026), the big question facing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was whether qualified immunity kept next-of-kin from prevailing on a section 1983 due process claim after the county coroner kept the skull of a murder victim as a “trophy” for forty years (yikes!) after turning over the rest of the body to the family for burial.
Continue Reading CA7: Illinois Recognizes Due Process Property In Kin’s Remains
The setup in Article 13 LLC v. New York Attorney General, No. 23-7247 (May 13, 2026) is very “Second Circuity,” and is bit convoluted, so hang on while we get through it. But we shall start with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s conclusion that a New York statute known as the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act did not result in a taking because the challenger does not have a property interest in “collaterally challeng[ing] the invalidity of a prior foreclosure action years after the limitations period expired[.]” Slip op. at 25. And even if that were a property right, this was not a Penn Central taking because any “negative economic impact … was the result of [the challenger]’s own inaction.” Id.
Continue Reading You Snooze You Lose In The Second Circuit: No Property Interest In Challenging A Statute When You Let The Statute Of Limitations Expire
It was on this day in 1928 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second most famous decision about zoning, Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928). We say “second” because everyone knows that the first is the Court’s decision issued just two years earlier which generally upheld comprehensive use, height, and density regulations as a valid exercise of the government’s police power to regulate property uses to further the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U S. 365 (1926).
Continue Reading You Don’t Look A Day Over 98, Nectow v. City of Cambridge
Hawaii has a unique status among American states. It is the only state that once was a separate sovereign nation, the Kingdom of Hawaii and then its short-lived successor, the Republic of Hawaii. Yes, we know that Texas may lay claim to the whole six-flags thing, so maybe the more accurate statement would be that Hawaii is the only state that was a sovereign kingdom, ruled by royalty.
Continue Reading If A King Must Comply With “Every Form And Particular” In Eminent Domain, Then Today’s Condemnors Also Surely Must
The latest from the lawyers who brought you Knick v. Township of Scott. A new cert petition challenging the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that a property owner asserting a due process violation must effectively exhaust state judicial remedies.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Must A Due Process Claimant Exhaust State Remedies?