Lawprof Ilya Somin (GMU Law), Mercatus Center’s Charles Gardner,
and lawyer Emily Cruikshank Bayonne (Tubman Realty, LLC)
speaking on “How Policy Changes Can Address Incursions on
Property Rights Where Courts Have Failed to do So.”
Jim Burling (PLF) moderating.
Recently, we attended a wonderful symposium co-sponsored by George Mason Law School’s Journal of
This one from the Tenth Circuit didn’t even merit a published opinion, but is still worth reading, just because the situation seems so absurd.
In this Order and Judgment, the court affirmed the dismissal of property owners’ claim that the County wouldn’t issue a septic permit until after the owners actually constructed the septic
In this Order, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to consider a case which challenges the Michigan governor’s Co-19 shutdown executive orders, which, in the words of the dissenting Justices, reached “nearly every aspect of life in our state.”
There have been a lot of cases asserting that Co-19 shutdowns are takings, with most (
Check out City of Kemah v. Crow, No. 01-23-00417-CV (July 25, 2024), from the Texas Court of Appeal (First District).
This is yet another takings ripeness case — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — the second recent opinion on this issue from the Texas court. See “Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based
We suggest those of you interested in takings ripeness — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — take a quick gander at the Texas Court of Appeals’ opinion in City of Buda v. N.M. Edificios, LLC, No. 07-23-00427-CV (July 2, 2024).
We won’t go into the details, except to say that a property
We were all set to write up a scintillating and detailed analysis of the New Jersey Appellate Division’s opinion in Englewood Hospital & Med. Center v. New Jersey, No. A-2767-21 (June 27, 2024), when we thought, ah, why not just ask you to read our New Jersey colleague Joe Grather’s scintillating and detailed analysis.
Short story is right there in the title of this post. As Joe puts it:
In short, the hospitals argued that requiring them to provide charity care and Medicaid care at a loss was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. The trial court analyzed the claims as an “as-applied” challenge. Therefore, it dismissed some of the claims because of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The “slightly different reason” was that the Appellate Court found the claims were a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, and therefore it analyzed the takings claims under the familiar rubric of whether there was a “direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property,” or an “uncompensated regulatory interference with a property owner’s interest in their property.” Slip op. at 14.
No physical taking, no Penn Central taking. We recommend you read his entire post “As We Approach Our Nation’s Birthday, a New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects Hospitals’ Takings Claims.”
Joe ends it this way: “I bet the hospitals are preparing their petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court now. Happy 4th of July!”
That means to stay tuned for more.
Englewood Hospital & Med. Center v. New Jersey, No. A-2767-21 (N.J. App. Div. June 27, 2024)
Continue Reading New Jersey: Forcing Hospital To Provide Care At A Loss Isn’t A Taking
Worth reading: a student-authored piece in the latest issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “Original Understanding of ‘Background Principles’ in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.“
From the Introduction:
But in Cedar Point, when considering a regulation that authorized union organizers to enter certain businesses, the Court
Check this out, a local government has filed a cert petition seeking reversal of one of those relatively rare circumstances where the property owner won below on a temporary regulatory takings claim for the County’s denial of a development permit.
We won’t go into details on this, but urge you to read the petition, especially
If you know, you know.
Sad birthday wishes to our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 45 today.
Time has not treated the opinion well. Practitioners, judges, and legal scholars across the spectrum have called the three-factor Penn Central test for an
As we noted here (“SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: “Important and pressing question” (Just Not In This Case)“), a small silver lining in the Court declining review was the statement of Justice Thomas accompanying the denial, where he noted the issue is an “important question,” and set out a