eminent domain

There was a large divide in the way each party identified the central issue in Monday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Hoffman v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., No. 25-159 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2026). The question sounds straightforward: when Congress authorizes a private pipeline company to exercise federal eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act, by what measure is just compensation measured? Federal compensation rules, which ordinarily do not include attorneys’ fees, or North Dakota’s compensation rules, which does? …
Continue Reading If Grandma Had Wheels: When The Feds Delegate Eminent Domain, Do Federal Just Compensation Rules Come Along For The Ride? (And What Happened To The Canon Of Narrow Construction?)

Here’s a typically short one from New York. In Red Hook Boat Club, Inc.v. Town Board of Red Hook, No. 2025-09981 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 2026), a New York intermediate appellate court upheld the Town’s exercise of eminent domain to take a boat club’s private property to turn it into a public riverfront park.
Continue Reading Conceivable Basis Strikes Again: Taking For Just About Anything Is Fine In New York

Here’s the cert petition we just filed asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit decision (which we posted about in “CA4 Puts The Cart Before The Horse: Private Entity Doesn’t Have The Power Of Eminent Domain, But It Is Likely To Get It If Only Those Pesky Owners Were Stopped From Exercising Their Right To Exclude“).
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Can Preliminary Injunctions Convey Eminent Domain Powers When There’s Been No Delegation Of Eminent Domain?

We’re in England for the upcoming Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, and instead of heading directly to London from Heathrow, thought it would be a good time to take a short diversion to nearby Runnymede for what must be the O.G. Property Rights Pilgrimage (those visits we do from time to time to the actual sites of well-known cases).
Continue Reading Property Rights Pilgrimage, Runnymede Edition

You are no doubt familiar with the “property is a bundle of sticks” metaphor. For nearly a century, private property rights have been described as a “bundle of sticks,” with each stick representing a distinct right associated with the ownership of property: the right to possess it, to exclude others, to use, alienate, and develop it, and so on. The metaphor is common parlance — but is it truly a good way to actually capture what this thing called “private property” means?
Recently, Pacific Legal Foundation and the George Mason Law Review gathered judges, scholars, practitioners, and students at the Law School for a symposium to try to shed some light on that question…
Continue Reading “Unpacking Private Property’s Bundle of Sticks” Symposium Report

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a while. In Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC, No. 089599 (N.J. Aug. 10, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a municipality is not required to identify the specific public use in an ordinance authorizing the taking of private property. It’s enough that there is a public use. It’s up to you, property owner and the public, to figure it out.
Continue Reading NJ: Just Because A Taking Must Have A Public Use And The Govt Should Have Let The Public Know, Doesn’t Mean The Condemnor Must Actually State The Public Use

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

But can a private for-profit energy company that admittedly does not possess the power of eminent domain force its way onto private property on the theory that it needs entry so the government can evaluate whether to delegate it the power of eminent domain? In PSEG Renewable Transmission LLC v. Arentz Family, LP, No. 25-1730 (Aug. 6, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals thought so.
Continue Reading CA4 Puts The Cart Before The Horse: Private Entity Doesn’t Have The Power Of Eminent Domain, But It Is Likely To Get It If Only Those Pesky Owners Were Stopped From Exercising Their Right To Exclude

It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that in a few days, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to teach two courses: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools in the country that offer a course in eminent domain, just compensation, and takings) -and Land Use Controls (an especially hot topic at the moment).
Continue Reading Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season 9

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been closely following (because we represent the property owners!). In this Memorandum and Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island invalidated the Town of Johnston’s ham-fisted attempt to take the property of a local family in order to move the current Town Hall from its present location in the center of town to the very outer border of the municipality, and build a new government complex. What is really going on is that this scheme only came about after the Town learned of the family’s plans to build affordable housing on their own land.
Continue Reading Town Has Not Been Delegated Eminent Domain Power And Can’t Just Make Up Its Own Procedures