Students of the Supreme Court’s infamous-the-day-it-was-decided decision in Kelo v. City of New London know that the legal issue presented and decided by the Court was somewhat narrow, but that the decision had a broad cultural impact such that Susette Kelo’s SCOTUS 5-4 loss was merely a precursor to widespread political
Fourth Branch Podcast: Talcott & Kochan On “Rebuilding California: Lessons from the Pacific Palisades Fire”
Check this out, a recent Fourth Branch pod featuring lawprof Donald Kochan and our law firm colleague Jeremy Talcott, “Explainer Episode 85 – Rebuilding California: Lessons from the Pacific Palisades Fire.”
Here’s the description:
The 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire has underscored the challenges of building in California’s complex regulatory landscape. In response
Feb. 16, 1833: Unhappy 192d Birthday To The First SCOTUS Takings Case, Barron v. Baltimore
This Sunday, February 16, 2025, will be the day, 192 years ago, when — a mere 5 days after oral arguments — the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous opinion in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).
Generations of law students study this decision in
When The Substitute Teacher Gives You Homework: Justice Breyer Says Federal Court Needs State Court Decision Before Considering Takings Claim
You remember when in grade school you learned that your teacher was out for the day, and you were getting a substitute? It could be a very good day, or a very not-so-good day. Maybe the sub was cool, and you end up watching filmstrips. But if you drew the short straw, the
Fla Ct App (en banc) In Takings Case: “failing to vindicate a right expressly stated in the Constitution is not judicial restraint but judicial abnegation. That we must not do.”
Shands Key, with the City of Marathon in the background
This just in: in Shands v. City of Marathon, No. 3D21-1987 (Fed. 5, 2025), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that the city’s downzoning of property (Shands Key, shown above in an exhibit from the Key West trial we participated
Join Us: “Property Rights and The Roberts Court: 2005-2025” (Feb. 27, 2025, UC Berkeley Law School)
Register now and plan on joining us on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at the U.C. Berkeley Law School for a one-day conference: “Property Rights and the Roberts Court: 2005-2025.”
Here’s the agenda. Here’s a description of the program:
For much of the past century, property rights were relegated to second-class status compared
New Article (Eric Claeys): “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County”
Check out this article, forthcoming in the George Mason Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy from lawprof Eric Claeys, “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County.”
This is one of the pieces coming out of the recent symposium “Imaging the Future of Regulatory Takings” at George Mason Law School.
Here’s the Abstract:
This Essay contributes to a symposium on the future of regulatory takings. It focuses on choice of law in eminent domain disputes. When claimants bring eminent domain claims in federal courts, the courts must determine whether the claimants have constitutional “private property” in the entitlements allegedly taken. Should that determination be made with federal law, with the law of the state allegedly taking property, or law from some other source?
The 2023 Supreme Court decision Tyler v. Hennepin County addressed that issue. Under Tyler, it is a federal question whether an eminent domain claimant has constitutional private property. To answer the question, federal courts usually consult the law of the state where the alleged taking took place. But that presumption applies only if state law seems to secure and not to circumvent the federal right. And if that reservation is not satisfied, federal courts may consult a wider pattern of legal sources—Anglo-American history, the general law of the several United States, federal court precedents, and a broader cross-section of law from the state allegedly taking property. That approach resembles the approach taken generally for federal constitutional rights—especially in Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand (1938)—but varies from the general approach in the sources it makes relevant to settle what counts as private property under the Fifth Amendment. This Essay interprets Tyler, and it offers a normative justification for Tyler’s approach to choice of law in eminent domain.
Don’t miss this one.Continue Reading New Article (Eric Claeys): “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County”
Bees May Be Fish In California, But Here In Colorado, Elephants Ain’t Persons
What to say about the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nonhuman Rights Project v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, No. 24SA21 (Jan. 21, 2025), wherein the court resolved the momentous and highly controversial question of whether an elephant is a person?
Our first temptation is to see this through the takings lens (surprise), and snark
Cal SCt Petition: Does “Existing Structures” Protected By The California Coastal Act Mean Only Those Existing In 1977?
You remember 1977, don’t you? No? Well surely you must know the soundtrack. Sublime and deeply resonant music, accompanied by complex-yet-meaningful lyrics like these:
I’m your boogie man, that’s what I am.
I’m here to do whatever I can.
Be it early morning, late afternoon.
Or at midnight, it’s never too soon.
To wanna please
NJ’s Forfeiture Statute Is A Taking Of Surplus Home Equity
If you thought the issue of whether it is a Fifth Amendment taking for a state or local government to “keep the change” after satisfying a tax debt was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), you’d be right.
Then what was there left for the