property rights

Two or three steps? You decide. A takings case arising from the same locality in Rhode Island that gave us Palazzolo (Westerly, R.I.). In DiBiccari v. Rhode Island, No. 2023-353 (Mar. 10, 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the owner’s federal takings claim was not ripe because even though the State agency had denied a variance to allow installation of a wastewater system, the owner had not pursued the agency’s administrative appeals process. …
Continue Reading RI: Federal Takings Claim Must Be Ripened By Exhausting State Admin Remedies By Appealing Variance Denial

Check this out. A student-authored case summary from the latest edition of the Harvard Law Review, commenting on Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners, an Eleventh Circuit case we designated as an honorable mention in 2025’s highlights. The Fulton panel split 2-1 (and we understand that the case is pending a decision on the County’s en banc petition), with the majority addressing the issue the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): do you need Congress’s ok to sue for just compensation for a taking?
Continue Reading Harvard Law Review Recent Case Summary: Eleventh Circuit Used A “Novel” Remedies Test To Hold The Just Compensation Clause Is Self-Executing

The latest from the lawyers who brought you Knick v. Township of Scott. A new cert petition challenging the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that a property owner asserting a due process violation must effectively exhaust state judicial remedies. …
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Must A Due Process Claimant Exhaust State Remedies?

An interesting one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Ligado Networks, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1792 (Mar. 9, 2026). In an unsigned opinion, the court held that it couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license because the parties had not adequately briefed the argument that a federal statute created a private property right. …
Continue Reading CAFED: We Can’t Tell Whether There’s Been A Physical Taking, Because You Haven’t Explained Well Enough What Property Interest You Have In Using Radio Frequencies

In Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Nguyen, No 2025-C-00827 (Mar. 6, 2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court invalidated a quick take by the Port of a vacant 29-acre parcel, because the property was to be leased to “a private company for its exclusive development and use.” Slip op. at 1. [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief, so we had a dog in the hunt.]…
Continue Reading Post-Kelo Amendments To Louisiana Constitution Prohibit Taking To Lease To Private Company For Its Own Use (Even If The Fifth Amendment Might Allow It)

A new must-read from lawprofs Lee Anne Fennell (Chicago) and Timothy Mulvaney (Tex. A&M) in the Yale Law Journal, “The Exactions Illusion: Sheetz’s Missing Dissent,” 135 Yale L.J. 1143 (2026). Now don’t get us wrong: we’re no offering this as a “must-read” because we agree with or endorse the article’s content and premise, but because we think the content and premise are subject to challenge.
Continue Reading New Article (Fennell & Mulvaney): “The Exactions Illusion: Sheetz’s Missing Dissent,” 135 Yale L.J. 1143 (2026)

Courtrooms are places for serious business. After all, people’s lives, businesses, property, and past and futures are at stake. It’s right that the court, the lawyers, and the public take what goes on there seriously. But judges and lawyers are also human, so it should surprise no one that moments of levity and humor can creep in.
Continue Reading Lighter Moments In Yesterday’s SCOTUS Takings Arguments

Here is the transcript of the oral arguments held earlier today in Pung v. Isabella County. [And before we get further, a disclosure: this case is one of ours as the above courthouse steps photo shows.]…
Continue Reading Transcript And Audio From Today’s SCOTUS Takings And Excessive Fine Arguments (Pung v. Isabella County)