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
CA6: A Wrongful Keeping Is A Taking, If Plaintiff Proves He Owns The Kept Property
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In Wenzel v. Federspiel, No. 24-1278 (June 20, 2025), the Sheriff was accused of keeping “fourteen firearms seized in a criminal investigation that ended years ago.” Slip op. at 1. Eventually, the claimed owners of those guns sued, inter alia
NJ App: Takings Claim Accrues When Govt Keeps Property It Should Return To The Owner
Take a look at the New Jersey Appellate Division’s opinion in Johnson v. City of East Orange, No. A-2586-23 (June 27, 2025).
The court vacated the dismissal of a property owner’s takings claim, holding that it was timely. We aren’t going into too much detail because this one is out of our shop. As
Not A Great Week For Property Rights Anniversaries: Penn Central Turns 46 Today
If you know, you know.
Sad birthday wishes to what just might be our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 46 today. This in addition to the unhappy Kelo-versary earlier this week. A takings and regulatory takings one-two punch!
Time
O, Canada! “Alberta Trailblazing on Property Rights Protections”
Check out this story from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy:
Most pundits missed it, but Alberta’s revised Bill of Rights just strengthened property rights in a big way. Senior research fellow Joseph Quesnel breaks down how new amendments could protect landowners from regulatory takings—government actions that restrict property use without compensation. He examines
Must-Listen Podcast: “Neat Takings Tricks” (Bound by Oath, S3, E3)
Please add this one to your podcast listening queue: the latest episode of Bound by Oath, produced by John Ross at the Institute for Justice. BBO isn’t a typical podcast, but more of an audio documentary as we have noted before. If you aren’t a subscriber, you really should be.
This episode focuses on
New Article: Note, “Background Principles” and the General Law of Property, 138 Harv. L. Rev. 2071 (June 2025)
Here’s the latest, a student-authored note, “‘Background Principles’ and the General Law of Property,” 138 Harv. L. Rev. 2071 (2025).
Here’s the argument:
Background principles are a strong medicine. When a court analyzes a takings claim, it must first identify the property interest at issue before deciding the more complex, discretionary question of
New Podcast: “Property Rights, Regulation, and the Rule of Law with Donald Kochan”
Check out the latest episode of the Lunch Hour Podcast, featuring lawprof Donald Kochan, “Property Rights, Regulation, and the Rule of Law.”
Here’s the description:
In this episode of The Lunch Hour with Federal Newswire, host Andrew Langer sits down with Professor Donald Kochan of the Antonin Scalia Law School at
Florida: Taxi Licenses May Have Been Declared “Private Property,” But They Aren’t Actually Private Property
In Bojorquez v. Florida, No. SC2023-0095 (June 5, 2025), the Florida Supreme Court reached a decision that a lot of other courts have reached: taxi licenses are not “private property” and therefore there’s no taking when the government does something to affect the value of those licenses. But this one has some interesting
Should We Make Anything Of The Supreme Court’s Denial Of Four Property Rights Petitions?
Knocking on the Supreme Court’s door
Earlier this week in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review four property rights cert petitions (three of which were ours):
- Iten v. County of Los Angeles – whether a Co-19 commercial eviction moratorium impaired the obligation of contracts (the lessor-lessee leases)?
- Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC