Here's the Reply Brief in Ilagan v. Ungacta, No. 12-723 (cert. petition filed Dec. 7, 2012), the case in which the Court is considering whether to review the Guam Supreme Court's opinion applying Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) to reverse a trial court decision invalidating a taking.
The reply brief responds to the Brief in Opposition's argument that the taking of the Ilagan property did not violate the Public Use Clause because it was accomplished under the auspices of the Agana Plan:
Most notably, the Opposition does not dispute the evidence showing the private character of the transfer of the Petitioners’ (Ilagans) land to their neighbors, the Ungactas. To be precise, the Opposition does not deny: (1) that the taking of the Ilagans’ land was initiated and funded by the Ungactas; (2) that the Unguctas are politically connected, with Respondent Felix Ungacta serving as Mayor of Agana at the time of the taking; (3) that the taking was designed to give the Ungactas a driveway to their private residence; (4) that the Agana Plan was defunct at the time of taking; (5) that the taking was disconnected in time, space, and process from past Agana Plan condemnations; or (6) that the government has abandoned its defense of the taking, (ironically) leaving the "public use" argument to be made by the private party that benefitted from the taking.
Br. at 1 (footnotes omitted). For a little light eminent domain-related Friday self-entertainment, read the above list in the style of comedian Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might be a Redneck" routine. For example: "If the condemnation of your land was initiated and funded by your neighbors ... you might be the victim of a pretextual taking." And so forth.
[Disclosure: we represent the Owners' Counsel of America, which has joined an amici brief supporting the property owner/petitioner in this case, urging the Court to grant cert.]
The Court requested the respondents file a BIO after they waived their right to do so, which could mean that this case is on the Court's (or the cert clerk's) radar.
The Court's docket report for the case is here if you want to follow along.
Reply Brief of Petitioners, Ilagan v. Ungacta, No. 12-723 (Mar. 21, 2013)
