A forthcoming article in the Cornell Law Review (“Virtual Briefing at the Supreme Court“) argues that it’s an “open secret” that the way to influence a SCOTUS case is to hit up social media:
The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on: we’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before
Short answer: no.
But the longer answer which lawprof Ilya Somin discusses in this short podcast is worth listening to. Check it out.
Here’s the summary:
Over the last few years, taxi companies in several cities have brought lawsuits claiming that legalizing ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft violates the Takings Clause of the
Remember that Christopher Nolan movie from a few years ago, “Inception,” with its dream-within-a-dream storyline?
Well, that’s what a recently-filed cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into California’s inverse-condemnation-liability-for-wildfires issue reminds us of with its taking-within-a-taking argument, as detailed in the Question Presented:
Whether it is an uncompensated
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se
Here’s what’s on the reading list for today:
We’re not quite sure what to make of this story (“The Raisin Situation“) in the New York Times, about the situation in Fresno, California, after the Horne case. You remember that one, don’t you? All about whether USDA’s seizure of raisins in order to maintain the price was a taking.
The piece
Nothing really can be done: the harsh reality is that CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) stink. But many state legislatures have concluded that farming and ranching are so important that the consequences (“externalities”) that naturally occur have to be accepted.
Right to Farm Acts, Indiana’s included, generally deprive neighboring property owners of their
Thanks to Professor Michael Wara’s Twitter feed, here is what might possibly be the first and only example of a comic strip devoted to inverse condemnation.
Yes, it is on an advocacy site (the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245), and it doesn’t really go into the details of the doctrine
Here are the links from today’s two sessions (the first, federal water issues impacting local land use; the second, Bringing and Defending a Takings Case):