As we noted here (when we posted our article), the latest issue of the Vermont Law Review deals with the U.S. Supreme Court's "judicial takings" case, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection, 130 S.Ct. 2592 (June 17, 2010).
In eight essays, the authors of several of the many amicus briefs add their post-opinion thoughts. Authors include Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute), Professor John D. Echeverria (Vermont Law), and Julia Wyman (Marine Affairs Institute). The groundwork is laid in the first article, by Professor L. Kevin Wroth:
If hard cases make bad law, bizarre cases may make no law at all. The recent Supreme Court decision, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection is a case in point. In the Essays that follow, the Vermont Law Review has brought together the reflections of seven lawyers, or teams of lawyers, for amici curiae in the case. The authors’ challenge was to consider the meaning and future implications of a decision in which no clear rationale emerged from the opinions.at 413 (footnote omitted). The editors have now posted the entire volume here.
Here is the table of contents and links to the articles:
- Hold Back the Sea: The Common Law and the Constitution, L. Kevin Wroth
- Judicial Takings and Scalia's Shifting Sands, Ilya Shapiro & Trevor Burris
- Of Woodchucks and Prune Yards: A View of Judicial Takings From the Trenches, Robert H. Thomas, Mark M. Murakami, & Tred R. Eyerly
- Do we Really Need a Judicial Takings Doctrine, Richard Ruda
- Stop the Beach Renourishment: Why the Judiciary is Different, John D. Echeverria
- A Divided Ruling for a Divided Country in Dividing Times, Michael J. Fasano
- In States we Trust: The Importance of the Preservation of the Public Trust Doctrine in the Wake of Climate Change, Julia B. Wyman
