Two more complaints challenging covid shutdown orders as takings (inter alia). Add to the growing list. See here, here, here and here, for other similar complaints.
The first is from California. It asserts that ordering "nonessential" businesses to shut down is a taking. The complaint alleges that unless the shut down is for "(1) destroying a building in front of a fire so as to create a fire break, (2) destroying a diseased animal, (3) rotten fruit or (4) infected trees," it is a taking.
The second is from New Jersey. So rather than get into the details, we're going to send you over to our NJ colleague Tony Della Pelle, who has some thoughts here ("NJ Shutdown Challenge – I Can’t Rent My Beach House!").
Will there be more of these? As we have said before, for sure. Fasten your seatbelts and hold on.
We're going to be discussing the property and takings issues in an upcoming Federalist Society teleforum (open to the public, not just FedSoc members), along with lawprof Ilya Somin and Professor F.E. Guerra-Pujol: "COVID-19 & Property Rights: Do Government Actions in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic Create Compensable Takings?" Join us on Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:30pm Eastern Time. More details here.
Complaint, Gondola Adventures, Inc. v. Newsom, No. _____ (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23 2020)
Complaint, Behar v. Murphy, No. 3:20-cv-05206 (D. N.J. Apr. 28, 2020)
