This one is worth your time to review.
In HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit, No. 23-1847 (Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/owner and a jury verdict on just compensation.
The case is notable not
Check out this new (ish) cert petition which asks whether the “final decision” ripeness rule that currently governs regulatory takings cases is also applicable when the right alleged to have been violated is procedural due process.
The petition sets out how the lower federal courts have dealt with the question:
This case presents an important
In Grand v. City of University Heights, No. 24-3876 (Nov. 13, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a complaint alleging a RLUIPA claim and others was not ripe because they are “land use” claims subject to Williamson County‘s final decision requirement.
A neighbor was “displeased” that Grand
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which asks: when the government is holding your abandoned property for you, do you have to ask for it to return it to you before you can bring a takings claim?
In Dillow v. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No.
Who likes paying a lot for prescription medications? Anyone?
Oregon sure didn’t like it, and it was going to do something about it. In 2018, it adopted a statute the “Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act,” which requires manufacturers to report to the State information about costs, revenues, and prices of certain prescription drugs. The Act
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
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).
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
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
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):