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
Not a lot that’s earthshaking from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Sablan v. Commonwealth Utilities Corp., No. 2024-SCC-0023 (June 20, 2026), but we’re posting it because its holding — an entity lacking the power of eminent domain may nonetheless be liable for inverse condemnation — is important because it rightly concludes that the focus of the calculus in these cases is on the infringement of the property owner’s rights, not the technicalities of the government’s power.
Continue Reading “The constitutional duty to provide just compensation arises from the act of taking private property for public use, not the formal possession of eminent domain authority.” Entity Lacking Eminent Domain Power Can Be Liable For Taking Property
Sad birthday wishes to what just might be our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 47 today. This in addition to the unhappy Kelo-versary earlier this week. A takings and regulatory takings one-two punch! Time has not treated the opinion well.
Continue Reading Unhappy 47th Anniversary, Penn Central
Yes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Banks v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, No. 25-1833 (Apr. 28, 2026) is unpublished, and we usually don’t cover unpublished opinions. But we put aside our usual reluctance to discuss unpublished work because the decision raises an important point: are the rules in “regulatory” takings only applicable when the government has adopted a regulation?
Continue Reading CA6: To Be A Regulatory Taking, There Must Be A Regulation
We’ve done vests and hats, and even the old reliable mug. And now we’re trying out lightweight fleecy jackets. That’s right folks: a limited, experimental, prototype piece of merch as depicted above, and below.
Continue Reading Latest inversecondemnation.com Swag
In an earlier post (“CAFED: Like We Said Before, “Inevitably Recurring” Flooding Is A Taking“), we covered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Alban v. United States, No. 23-1363 (Dec. 22, 2025), which held that the failure of the Corps of Engineers to properly operate two
It is time to bid farewell to the Year 2025, and our mind wanders back over the last 364 days in an attempt to ascribe meaning, a theme — a vibe — to the year that was.
Scientists tell us that this is just another trip around the Sun, but we humans like to
In State ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, No. 2025-Ohio-5094 (Nov. 13, 2025), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the City of Cleveland could be liable for inversely condemning land, even though that land is not in the City of Cleveland.
The city claimed that in order to be liable for inverse condemnation
As we wrap up another year, it’s time to look ahead to the one event that always gets our eminent domain blood pumping: the annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Details, including faculty list, a complete agenda, and registration information is posted here.
Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering
Oral arguments in Cienega Gardens v. United States (Fed. Cir. No. 06-5051, Apr. 2, 2007), a case involving the application of the Penn Central ad-hoc test for regulatory takings, have been posted in two parts on the Federal Circuit’s web site: part 1 (68mb mp3), and part 2 (7mb mp3).
Also posted is the oral