Penn Central

Worth reading, if only for its somewhat odd logic is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago, No. 25-1713 (July 22, 2026), where the court upheld, against a takings challenge, a city requirement that anyone who acquires a rental property via foreclosure must either enter into new one-year leases with any existing tenant who desires to remain, or pay $10,600 if a tenant chooses to vacate. …
Continue Reading CA7: Takings Claim “has something to it,” But City Requiring Owner Pay Relocation Fee To Tenants Is A “Clunky” Form Of Rent Control, So You Lose

The essence of the infamous three-factor Penn Central test for whether a restriction on the use of private property under the police power “goes too far” and is treated as a de facto exercise of eminent domain is the Court’s admonition that the takings question is resolved by “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries,” and not, generally speaking, by the application of categorical rules. To quote the unanimous Court (in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg), there is no “magic formula” to determine “in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a taking,” because “of the nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests.” Thus, there are “few invariable rules in this area.”…
Continue Reading CA9, 2-1: We Have A Magic Formula To Resolve Penn Central’s “Ad Hoc, Factual Inquiry” On 12(b)(6) In Every Case

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

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for quite a while. In Ohio ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, LLC v. Mertz, No. 2026-Ohio-1487 (Apr. 29, 2026), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the operator of injection wells lacked an investment-backed expectation to operate such wells because it did business in a highly-regulated environment, and it understood at the time it purchased the property the risk it would be further regulated. Slip op. at 17-18.
Continue Reading Ohio: Temporarily Shutting Down Injection Wells After Earthquakes Is Not A Penn Central Taking

In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking. …
Continue Reading CA6: Denial Of Rezoning Is Not A Penn Central Taking

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-2935 (Dec. 11, 2025), isn’t one the typical readers of this outlet might notice.

After all, it’s mostly about a tech company beef, as the caption might indicate. And the opinion is about one aspect of that beef, where the district court ordered Apple to do something, and then … it didn’t.
Continue Reading CA9: District Court’s Contempt Order Isn’t A Judicial Taking

When an opinion starts off with “[t]his zoning/inverse condemnation case revolves around the availability of parking…” you kinda know, whatever the issues might be, that the court isn’t likely headed in a good direction for the claimant.

That’s exactly how the Supreme Court of South Carolina began The Gulfstream Cafe, Inc. v. Georgetown County…

2011-05-14_16-31-39_422

Who likes paying a lot for prescription medications? Anyone?

Oregon sure didn’t like it, and it was going to do something about it. In 2018, it adopted a statute the “Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act,” which requires manufacturers to report to the State information about costs, revenues, and prices of certain prescription drugs. The Act…