Congratulations – if you understood this post’s headline, you are officially a rails-to-trails nerd. A super-nerd.
But even if not, you shouldn’t need a rails-to-trails nerd’s level of knowledge to understand and appreciate the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (May 29, 2020). It’s a case worth reading
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (briefs here, and oral argument recording here).
Any eminent domain lawyer will tell you that loss of access cases can be difficult. In some jurisdictions, you have to lose all access before the court will consider you harmed. Or the courts see a
Things moving quickly: remember way back when — in April, was it? — when a Connecticut lounge owner sued a mayor and the governor, asserting that a shut-down order was a taking?
Well, the court recently denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order.
There’s nothing in the Ruling about the takings
Programming note: On the weekend we’ve set aside to remember our nation’s war dead, we thought we’d repost this one, about how Arlington National Cemetery came to be, and how yes, there’s a takings story there.
———————————————————
You know how we’re always saying that the provisions in the Takings Clause are “self-executing,” that even in
TEXT
Here’s what we’re reading today as we enter a long weekend (who can tell?):
Our shut-in time has got us to thinking.
We’re all environmentalists now. This is the precautionary principle writ large. In a way, this is only part of a greater problem.
Welcome to the Twitterverse. We now have access to a vast amount of data — very often on a granular level — and this moves
Last Friday, we had the good fortune to moderate a debate between two scholars — F.E. Guerra-Pujol and Ilya Somin — on the question of takings and emergencies (“COVID-19 & Property Rights: Do Government Actions in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic Create Compensable Takings?“). This issue has resulted in a flurry of claims