Back in February, we were honored to be part of the University of Hawaii Law Review’s symposium “25 Years of PASH,” a retrospective of one of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s most famous (or infamous) decisions, Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty. Plan. Comm’n, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1993), cert. denied
Check it out: the “Digging a Hole” Podcast includes in one of its recent episodes a discussion of SCOTUS’s latest takings case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Our final guest for Season 3 is Nikolas Bowie, assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School and board member of the ACLU of Massachusetts, Lawyers for
Be sure to check out the latest article from takings scholars and Nestor Davidson and Tim Mulvaney, “Takings Localism,” 121 Colum. L. Rev. 215 (2021) (pdf here).
Here’s the abstract:
Conflicts over “sanctuary” cities, minimum wage laws, and gender-neutral bathrooms have brought the problematic landscape of contemporary state preemption of local governance to national attention. This Article contends that more covert, although equally robust, state interference can be found in property, with significant consequences for our understanding of takings law.
Takings jurisprudence looks to the states to mediate most tensions between individual property rights and community needs, as the takings federalism literature recognizes. Takings challenges, however, often involve local governments. If the doctrine privileges the democratic process to resolve most takings claims, then, that critical process is a largely local one.
Despite the centrality of local democracy to takings, state legislatures have restricted local authority on property issues in a range of ways. States have expanded compensatory liability for owners facing local regulations, imposed procedural constraints on local authority, and limited the exercise of foundational local powers. Seen in its entirety, this state intervention—like contemporary “new preemption”—is acontextual and unduly rigid, cutting at the heart of the devolutionary principles underlying takings jurisprudence.
This unbalanced state role requires a recalibration of decisionmaking power between state and local government to foster intersystemic dialogue and reflection. States certainly play a crucial role in defining and protecting property interests, but they must justify choices to constrain local discretion when state and local values conflict. The extant state statutory regime dispenses with this justificatory task via a formalistic disregard for the contextualization that legitimates vertical allocations of authority. A corrective to decades of imbalance in state ordering of local authority would thus properly recognize “takings localism.”
Free up local governments, or tie their hands…which is better? After reading this, you decide.
Continue Reading New Article: “Takings Localism” (Tim Mulvaney & Nestor Davidson)
It takes a bit of work to work your way through the Arizona statute being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in CDK Globall LLC v. Brnovich, No. 20-16469 (Oct. 25, 2021). But we recommend you read the opinion and do the work nonetheless, because it tells us something about the way
“This year, the Northwestern University Law Review presents a symposium on property and inequality, which brings together scholars of legal history, property, tax, land use, fair housing, environmental law, natural resources and water rights, family law, education, and constitutional law, to highlight new scholarship at the intersection of these fields.”
Please plan on joining us next Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 8pm ET for the next gathering of the Eminent Domain and Right of Way Club, a social media gathering spot “geared toward right of way professionals as well as anyone interested in the acquisition of land rights for infrastructure projects.” Register for the
LUI Co-Chair Prof. Frank Schnidman introducing the faculty
Here are the links to the cases and issues that we just finished speaking about at the 35th Annual Land Use Institute (more information on the LUI here). Today was day 1 of a multi-day remote program and the sessions are available ala carte, so there’s still
We don’t read the New York Times all that much these days, but we couldn’t resist commenting on the recent op-ed authored by a former federal government lawyer that takes issue with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, “The Supreme Court Has Gone Off the Rails” (Oct. 4, 2021).
On one hand
As we’ve said before, you don’t need to know much about takings doctrine to understand that a challenge wherein the property alleged to have been taken are “bump stocks” — devices that allow rapid activation of a semi-automatic rifle such that it roughly imitates a fully-automatic weapon — to understand that courts
Joe Waldo leading off the Conference with a remembrance of
Toby Prince Brigham, for the eminent property rights practitioner
for whom the Conference is named.
I was honored to speak today at the 2021 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, and here’s a rough transcript of my remarks.
Seeking Justice Through Just Compensation
Dean Spencer, Professor