The focus in the Kelo majority on Euclidean-style planning — if a taking where a private party either ends up with the land or is benefited is part of some kind of plan, then it is likely ok — raises the question: how much planning must the condemning agency do before it can take property?

The Michigan Court of Appeals took up that question in County of Kalamazoo v. Berry, No. 367503 (Sep. 11, 2026) (per curiam), and concluded that identifying a valid public use and explaining why the property is needed is about all the “plan” needs to be.
Continue Reading County Can Condemn Private “Inholding” Surrounded By Parkland, Even If The “Plan” Is Simply To Make The Park Whole

There’s a cautionary tale in the Florida District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envt’l Protection, No. 1D2025-0660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2026), which held that a regulatory takings claim was barred by the statute of limitations. There, the owner applied to develop land in and once it received the final “no” from the State, sued for a taking. All good, right? After all, your claim isn’t ripe until the reviewing authority has given its final answer on whether or how the property might be used.
Continue Reading Between Scylla And Charybdis: Your Lucas Claim May Be Too Early … Or Too Late

Check this out, a new (to us, at least) article from lawprof Adam J. MacLeod, “Vested Rights and the Presumption of Lawful Use,” 2 Tex. A & M J. of Law & Civil Governance (2026). See if reading the Abstract doesn’t make you want to read the entire piece…
Continue Reading New(ish) Article: Adam J. MacLeod, “Vested Rights and the Presumption of Lawful Use,” 2 Tex. A & M J. of Law & Civil Governance (2026)

Here’s one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joining the growing number of cases holding that government cannot satisfy due process with gestures that look like notice, but aren’t reasonably calculated to actually notify anyone. In Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts, No. 24-10748 (Aug. 17, 2026), the court concluded that although the ordinance which deems abandoned property forfeited if the government provides notice isn’t facially unconstitutional, the Clerk nonetheless failed to take step reasonably calculated to provide actual notice (the notices were published in a limited-circulation Spanish language newspaper), and thus any claim by the government to funds on deposit (but apparently abandoned) would be a taking.
Continue Reading CA11: County Can’t Treat Court Registry Funds As “Abandoned” Property When It Knows Notice Never Reached Owner

Worth a read: our colleague Sam Spiegelman’s latest piece that, as the title indicates, offers a theory to return Euclid and zoning laws to their harm-prevention roots, or abandon Euclid entirely. In “‘One Hundred Years of Solicitude’: Fixing the Nanny State of Zoning at Euclid’s Centennial,” 42 Touro L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026) (working draft available at SSRN here), Sam urges a return to the “sic utere approach,” and limited to harm prevention, not social engineering.
Continue Reading New Article: Sam Spiegelman, “‘One Hundred Years of Solicitude’: Fixing the Nanny State of Zoning at Euclid’s Centennial,” 42 Touro L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026)

The question before the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Dep’t of Transportation v. Rite Touch Investments is whether the state constitution’s Law of the Land Clause, N.C. Const. art. I, § 19, permits a property owner who proves the condemnor’s offer of just compensation was constitutionally inadequate to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Here, the trial court held yes, and NCDOT appealed.
Continue Reading Brief (Ours): N.C. Constitution Requires Owners Be Made Economically Whole, Which Includes Attorneys’ Fees

In Debbane v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A172067 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2026), the California Court of Appeal upheld the invalidation of San Francisco’s Proposition M, which the voters enacted “to ‘tax’ owners of certain residential units in buildings with more than two units for any unit kept ‘vacant’ for more than 182 days.” Slip op. at 1. The purpose of Prop M is to make it too economically painful for property owners to withhold units from the rental market, “thereby increasing the number of housing units available for occupancy.” Id.
Continue Reading San Francisco Vacancy “Tax” Invalidated: You Can’t Be Forced To Rent Your Property

Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been on for a long time: whether government actions taken under the police power are categorically exempt from providing just compensation when those activities take or damage private property. In Blue 42 Organics, LLC v. Georgia Dep’t of Public Safety, No. S25G1493 (Sep. 9, 2026), the Georgia Supreme Court held no, and that the State was not categorically immune from an inverse condemnation claim just because the government damaged the property in the course of an apparently valid exercise of the police power.
Continue Reading Georgia: Invoking “Police Power” Doesn’t Automatically Evade Just Compensation When Govt Damages Private Property