The DC Court of Appeals’ (note: not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) opinion in Gordon v. District of Columbia, No. 20-CV-0568 (Feb. 15, 2024), presents a good cross-section of property rights issues. Not a good outcome on property rights issues, mind you.
If nothing else, be sure to check out
Yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In this order the U.S. Supreme Court denied review to a case that we’ve long been following, which challenged aspects of New York’s draconian rent control laws as a taking, 74 Pinehurst v. New York.
We say the “other shoe” because ever since the Court denied review months
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Peace Ranch, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-16063 (Feb. 13, 2024), where the court concluded that the owner of a mobilehome park could bring a federal court challenge to a California statute, even before the state applied the statute and enforced it.
There’s a mobilehome park
Today’s the day, 191 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 one in their Con Law classes, and it
Illinois adopted a statute that tweaked public pensions:
On January 1, 2020, Public Act 101-610 became effective and amended, in pertinent part, portions of the pension code to consolidate all applicable local police and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds, one for police and the other for firefighters. Pursuant to the
A quick per curiam from the Ohio Supreme Court.
In State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, LLC v. Mertz, No. 2023-0125 (Ohio Jan. 24, 2024), the court issued a gentle (or maybe not-so-gentle) “benchslap” to the court of appeals. Here’s the scenario.
First of all, recall that Ohio does not recognize a
Thank you to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School’s State Court Report (#statecourtreport) for publishing our piece “Missed Opportunities in State Takings Challenges to Pandemic-Era Restrictions.” The title gives a hint about what this is about: how state and local government’s reaction to Co-19 spurred challenges not only under the U.S.
One week ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Devillier v. Texas.
We wrote up our thoughts in this post, “Rogue States: Today’s Argument In Devillier v. Texas – ‘Aren’t the Courts supposed to do something’ About Violations Of The Constitution?,” and now bring you other reports:
Don’t miss out!
We promise: this is the last time we’re going to try to entice you to the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in New Orleans. We are getting close to capacity, but there is still room. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and
We’d guess that most people, if asked whether the courts can “do something” when the government acts beyond the authority delegated to it in the Constitution, would respond that “doing something” is exactly what courts are for.
Bottom Line Up Front
And that is what drives our BLUF on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in