For the last week, the blog has been a bit idle. That hasn't been because we're slowing down, but was mostly the result of our blog platform being worked on behind-the-scenes, which knocked a lot of the hosted blogs offline, this one included. But things look good now, so here we are.
We were also on the road, traveling to New York for the Seventeenth Meeting of the American College of Business Court Judges, where we were able to join an august panel of takings mavens (pictured above, L-to-R: Judge Paul Wallace, Professor Julia Mahoney, some guy, Nancie Marzulla, and Professor Richard Epstein) to talk about the state of takings law.
The title of our program was "The State of Takings Law: 100 Years After Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon and One Year After Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid," and we spent our time discussing and debating the state of takings law and theory.
When it came our turn at the mic, we started by answering the call of the question: the current state of takings law is "incoherent...but with the footnote that it appears to be getting better." We won't go into the details of why we so concluded, but you can guess: the default test for a regulatory taking, Penn Central, is hardly a model of coherence and when you add in the various procedural traps that remain, you get ... a lot of fodder for panels like these.
Our appreciation goes out to George Mason U. Law School and Professor Donald Kochan, who were kind enough to include us among these august speakers.
