If there’s a silver lining in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County, No. 23-5765 (Sep. 3, 2024), a case about what we call “SWAT takings” (police destroy someone’s property in order to dislodge a criminal suspect), it’s that the court did not adopt
Too Far: Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings (Friday, Oct. 4, 2024)
There’s still time to join us next Friday, October 4, 2024, at the Antonin Scalia Law School (George Mason University) for the symposium “Too Far: Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings.”
Co-produced by our outfit (Pacific Legal Foundation) and the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, the symposium will feature the
Court To Phoenix: Clean Up Your Act!
A frequent vibe in cases where a member of the public asks a court to compel a local government to do something about an undesired land use (i.e., “the city should stop my neighbor from illegally renting their property,” or “the police should remove the pop-up unlicensed food stand on the sidewalk in
New Jersey: Forcing Hospital To Provide Care At A Loss Isn’t A Taking
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
Argument Preview: Is Gov’t Imposed “Church Purposes” Deed Restriction Void?
Today at 10am Hawaii Time (1pm PT/4pm ET), the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case asking whether a 1922 deed restriction imposed by the Territory of Hawaii on a land patent conveying fee simple title to a private owner, subject to the land always being used for “church purposes” (i.e
Can The California Coastal Commission Be Reined In?
The California Coastal Commission is infamous for being the most out-of-control governmental agency in the nation. This regulatory leviathan fancies itself the undisputed czar of land use and other activities in its fiefdom, the California coastal zone.
Created in 1976 as an agency with regulatory authority across California’s 1,000+ miles of coast (and land in
Fla App: Govt Agreed To Be Bound By Restrictive Covenant, But So What!
A short one (per curiam is one two-sentence paragraph), with an interesting concurring opinions from the Florida District Court of Appeals (4th District).
In Vazquez v. City of Hallandale Beach, No. 4D2023-0833 (June 12, 2024), the court held that a restrictive covenant that ran with Vazquez’ land (and others in his subdivision, including the
Games Government Play: Ninth Circuit Doesn’t Buy Attempt To Moot Constitutional Challenge To Co-19 Vaccination Policy By Sandbagging And Withdrawing
Games people play
Night or day they’re just not matchin’
What they should do
Keeps me feelin’ blue
Been down too long
Right, wrong, I just can’t stop it
This one isn’t about takings, but is nonetheless a must-read.
In Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, No. 22-55908 (June 7, 2024), a panel
Happy Birthday, Nectow v. City of Cambridge!
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
Blinded Me With Science! No Taking For Selective Co-19 Business Shut-Down, But Might Violate North Carolina’s Fruits Of Labor Clause
Check out the North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in North Carolina Bar and Tavern Ass’n v. Cooper, No. COA22-725 (Apr. 16, 2024).
We’re not going to go into great detail, mostly because this one tracks the most common judicial approach to takings challenges to business shut-down orders during the Co-19 period. The court