Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.
In Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, No. A23-0191 (July 30, 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the city barring owners from refusing to rent residential properties to a prospective tenant because the applicant is on public assistance is not a taking.
What
The room where it happened.
We’re not going to say much about the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (July 29, 2025), which is back in the California court system after remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is one of ours.
It appears that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has addressed the issue the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped recently in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): do you need Congress’s ok to sue for just compensation for a taking?
In Fulton v. Fulton County Bd of Commissioners, No. 22012041
Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following for a long time.
In Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, No. 166320 (July 16, 2025), the Michigan Supreme Court re-confirmed its ruling in Rafaeli v. Oakland County, that the government “keeping the change” after liquidating property to satisfy a delinquent tax debt
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State, No A-16-24 (July 16, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected physical and regulatory takings claims made by hospitals which are required to treat nonpaying patients even though the Medicare reimbursements available will not cover the
Last year, we attended a conference devoted to the future of regulatory takings, hosted by the Antonin Scalia School of Law (George Mason U), and Pacific Legal Foundation.
The publisher, the Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy has released the articles and essays from that conference, and made them available here.
Here’s the
What’s going on in the Sixth Circuit? First, there was this opinion in Howard v. Macomb County, which in our view really missed the Knick vibe and resurrected the overruled Williamson County “state procedures” requirement.
Now there’s a doubling down, OPV Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (July 9, 2025).
The latest episode of the “Is That Even Legal?” podcast features a familiar voice, that of former Eminent Domain Podcast host, Clint Schumacher who joins host Bob Sewell as a guest to discuss takings by eminent domain, and by overregulation.
Clint joins the ITEL Podcast to discuss a situation that has been in
Be sure to read this recently-published piece in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Mason Miller, “Hunting for Meaningful Boundaries: Virginia’s Dog Retrieval Statute and Defining Per Se Regulatory Takings Under Cedar Point,” 33 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 1271 (2025).
The article focuses on Virginia’s so-called “right
Yesterday, in this Order in a case we’ve been following, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether a municipal ordinance which allowed non-paying tenants to remain in the lessor’s property after the agreed-upon termination of a lease (nonpayment of rent) is a physical taking, or merely the regulation of the lessor/lessee relationship under
