Police Power

Here’s the latest in our continuing series of dirt law pilgrimages, where we visit the site of some of the more important cases in our favorite area of law. As every dirt lawyer knows, you can see photos, read descriptions, and study plat maps. But when it comes to understanding about the property at issue, nothing substitutes for getting your shoes in the dirt on-site, seeing the area for yourself, smelling the air. Walking the earth.
Continue Reading Property Pilgrimage: Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

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

Here’s a cert petition that asks whether a local government (here, the granola-swanky Marin County, California) as a condition of approving a building permit may require a property owner to restrict uses of the land to commercial agriculture, and bind all future owners of the property as well. Because this is one of ours, we won’t be going into great detail but will instead leave it to you, starting with the Questions Presented.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Can You Be Forced To Be A Farmer Under The Police Power?

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. After a loss at the Eighth Circuit, the property owners have filed a cert petition.

This is the case where court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the city’s “blighted list” was not a regulatory taking. The city had issued citations for various code violations, sent compliance orders, and was apparently reacting to a fire on the premises.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Invoking “Police Power” Alone Doesn’t Avoid Takings

Pictured: PLF’s Steve Davis, getting us started. We’re underway today with the academic symposium “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Euclidean Zoning for the Century Ahead” at the George Mason Law School. Cosponsored by the law school’s Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy, Mercatus Center, and our outfit Pacific Legal Foundation, the symposium is designed to focus the discussion of housing, zoning, and property rights (hot topics in the headlines), and ask the question: has Euclidean zoning outlived its usefulness? And if so, what, if anything, should replace it?
Continue Reading Symposium: “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Euclidean Zoning for the Century Ahead”

If you are still looking for a reason to head to the 808 next month, here it is. The 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, February 13, 2026 at the University of Hawaii School of Law.
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School, Feb 13, 2026 (Live & Webcast)

Sometimes when you read a court opinion you imagine there’s a big gap between the objective, sterile words on the page and the reality of the situation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, No. 24-2946 (Dec. 22, 2025) is one of those.

The words

Here’s one you don’t want to miss. Lawprof Shelley Ross Saxer has published “Forfeiture Takings, Police Power, and Necessity Destruction,” 80 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (2025).

Here’s the Abstract:

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property when there is probable cause it has been used or possessed in violation of

Check this out: a significant and important decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an issue we’ve been following.

In Alford v. Walton County, No. 2021-13999 (Nov. 17, 2025), the unanimous panel concluded that the county’s Co-19 restrictions, which closed all beaches (public and private) in the county