It’s back! After a hiatus on the in-person program, the bi-annual Hawaii Land Use Conference is back in-person (see here for a sample of one of our prior presentations at this conference).
May 25 and 26, 2022, downtown Honolulu.
The full agenda and speaker list has not yet been published, but here’s a summary
A new article by lawprof Bethany Berger, “Property and the Right to Enter,” criticizing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cedar Point Nursery. The article builds on the amicus brief in the case, also authored by Prof Berger.
Here’s the Abstract:
On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, holding that laws that authorize entry to land are takings without regard to duration, impact, or the public interest. The decision runs roughshod over precedent, but it does something more. It undermines the important place of rights to enter in preserving the virtues of property itself. This Article examines rights to enter as a matter of theory, history, and constitutional law, arguing that the law has always recognized their essential role. Throughout history, moreover, expansions of legal exclusion have often reflected unjust domination antithetical to property norms. The legal advocacy that led to Cedar Point continues this trend, both undermining protections for vulnerable immigrant workers in this case, and succeeding in a decades long effort to use exclusion as a constitutional shield against regulation.
Definitely worth reading.
Continue Reading New Article (Bethany Berger): “Property and the Right to Enter”
Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we talked about last Friday at the Georgia Bar Association’s annual Eminent Domain Conference. Our talk was entitled “It’s the Chief Justice’s Property World, We Just Live In It: National Trends in Takings, Property, & Eminent Domain,” and was part of
A new article on takings from U. Virginia Law School profs Ann Woolhandler and Julia Mahoney in the Notre Dame Law Review, “Federal Courts and Takings Litigation.” Get the pdf here.
Rather than try and summarize the piece, we’re just going to cut-and-paste the highlights from the article’s Introduction:
While Knick clearly expands
Another takings challenge to a Co-19 shutdown, another “no taking” result.
This time, it is from the Florida District Court of Appeal (Fifth District). In Orlando Bar Group, LLC v. Desantis, No.5D21-1248 (Apr. 8, 2022), the court affirmed dismissal of takings challenges to the governor’s emergency order that barred certain alcohol sales, and
Here’s the latest case challenging a pandemic-related eviction moratorium, this one from Minnesota and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
In Heights Apts, LLC v. Walz, No. 21-1278 (Apr. 5, 2022), the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of a property owner’s takings claims. The owner challenged the Minnesota governor’s residential
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in 301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (Mar. 14, 2022), in which the court held that a Minneapolis ordinance prohibiting property owners from rejecting a prospective tenant because of the applicant’s criminal, credit, or rental history
Here’s a really short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Not published, so even shorter than you might expect.
In Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Ass’n v. Kimsey, No. 20-2176 (Mar. 1, 2022), the court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the sole remedy for a takings claim is just compensation.
We gotta be honest here: when the substantive portion of an opinion (even an opinion about takings and exactions) begins with, “Congress created the Enterprises to, inter alia, provide liquidity to the mortgage market…” our eyes kind of glaze over. It’s going to be one of those opinions.
But we soldiered on, and slogged
Lately, we’ve been zeroing in on one of the lesser known parts of the Supreme Court’s takings canon, Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), where the Court concluded that a city ordinance that limited the amount a property owner could charge a tenant for rent was not a physical invasion taking.