Physical Invasion | Yee

But can a private for-profit energy company that admittedly does not possess the power of eminent domain force its way onto private property on the theory that it needs entry so the government can evaluate whether to delegate it the power of eminent domain? In PSEG Renewable Transmission LLC v. Arentz Family, LP, No. 25-1730 (Aug. 6, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals thought so.
Continue Reading CA4 Puts The Cart Before The Horse: Private Entity Doesn’t Have The Power Of Eminent Domain, But It Is Likely To Get It If Only Those Pesky Owners Were Stopped From Exercising Their Right To Exclude

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

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. The owners of the trademark of the famous baseball player Roberto Clemente asserted a physical takings claim after the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico used a likeness of Clemente on commemorative license plates, among other things. The First Circuit rejected the takings claim……
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Trademark Property Subject To The Same Takings Rules As Other Private Property?

Not a lot that’s earthshaking from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Sablan v. Commonwealth Utilities Corp., No. 2024-SCC-0023 (June 20, 2026), but we’re posting it because its holding — an entity lacking the power of eminent domain may nonetheless be liable for inverse condemnation — is important because it rightly concludes that the focus of the calculus in these cases is on the infringement of the property owner’s rights, not the technicalities of the government’s power. …
Continue Reading “The constitutional duty to provide just compensation arises from the act of taking private property for public use, not the formal possession of eminent domain authority.” Entity Lacking Eminent Domain Power Can Be Liable For Taking Property

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

The salient features of New Mexico’s elk management program, including the state’s introduction and efforts to build up the population of elk, the EPLUS (“elk private lands use system”), the mitigation assistance program, and the introduced elk becoming a nuisance, to private property owners are common in these type of things. But like a lot of what we call “wildlife” takings (like this and this, for example), the decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Kiehne v. New Mexico Dep’t of Game and Fish, No. A-1-CA-42309 (June 3, 2026), does not go well for the owners.
Continue Reading Even Though They Have A “Relationship,” Those Elk The State Introduced Are Wildlife Not State Elk, So No Physical Taking When They Invade And Damage Private Property

As the caption of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Reynolds, No. 25-1750 (Apr. 23, 2026), might indicate, this is a case about animal-rights activists coming onto property to video the goings-on.

Iowa had already criminalized certain trespasses: entering or…

Here’s a just-filed cert petition, which poses a question that has been around since at least 1980: when third parties enter private property under color of state law against the wishes of the owner, is this a taking? That’s right, the issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). (And yes, the above photo is from a visit to The Pruneyard shopping center in Campbell, California a while back.)…
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Time For PruneYard To Go

Yes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Banks v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, No. 25-1833 (Apr. 28, 2026) is unpublished, and we usually don’t cover unpublished opinions. But we put aside our usual reluctance to discuss unpublished work because the decision raises an important point: are the rules in “regulatory” takings only applicable when the government has adopted a regulation?
Continue Reading CA6: To Be A Regulatory Taking, There Must Be A Regulation

We’re deep in the throes of winter, and spring training won’t start for another month, but for those of you who are fans of the National Pastime — particularly if you are like us and a child of 1970’s baseball — then be sure to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s recent opinion in Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, No. 23-1922 (Jan. 16, 2026).
Continue Reading CA1: Government’s Use Of Roberto Clemente Trademark Isn’t A Categorical Physical Invasion Taking