You remember that Seventh Circuit case challenging (as, inter alia, a no-public-use taking) the location of the Obama Center in Chicago's Jackson Park under the public trust (from the home of the American public trust doctrine, Chicago)? We wrote about it in "Friends Without Benefits: CA7 Rejects Takings Claim For Obama Center Because Citizen's Group Lacks Property Interest In Public Park."
This was then-Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Barrett's first (and only) takings or property rights opinion she authored prior to her promotion to the Supreme Court.
A citizen's group asserted it has a property interest in Jackson Park by virtue of being the beneficiary of the public trust, and that the handing over of the Park to the Obama Foundation was a private benefit regulatory taking. The plaintiff sought an injunction stopping the transfer, and did not seek just compensation.
The district court and the Judge Barrett-led Seventh Circuit disagreed, both concluding that the plaintiffs do not possess a protected property interest, and that the taking met the low bar established under the Public Use Clause. (Yes, we know this is a regulatory takings claim and not a Kelo-style challenge, but when Professor Richard Epstein is the lawyer for the plaintiffs, do you expect theories that are plebeian?)
Well, now there's been a cert petition filed by the plaintiffs that present two questions:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs possess Article III standing to bring their takings and due process claims in light of the Seventh Circuit’s application of Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) and similar authorities of this Court?
2. If standing exists, whether the City of Chicago violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights on their takings and due process claims?
We challenge you to read the petition in your head in Professor Epstein's voice. We did, and it is a much more enjoyable read that way.
Follow along with the case with us, or on the Court's docket here.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 20-1259 (U.S. Mar. 8, 2021...
