property rights

We’ve been holding on to this eminent domain necessity decision from the Vermont Supreme Court because we were scheduled to pay a visit to the Green Mountain State (more on that in a subsequent post), and we wanted to include some photos (photos are always good in an otherwise dry law blog post). Mongeon Bay Properties, LLC v. Town of Colchester, No. 25-AP-125 (Jan. 23, 2026), is an eminent domain case where the Town tried to condemn the property (shown above) which is part of a larger unsubdivided parcel owned by Mongeon on the shore of Malletts Bay (part of Lake Champlain). The court invalidated the taking, holding that the Town failed to prove the statutory elements of necessity.
Continue Reading Vermont And The Bare Necessities: Taking Was Unnecessary Because Town Didn’t Bother To Meet Statutory Requirements

A newly-filed property rights cert petition worth watching. [Disclosure: this one is from our firm, so we won’t be commenting.] Here are the Questions Presented: “Whether Maine’s requirement that lobstermen place a GPS tracking device on their private fishing vessels and submit to 24/7 surveillance constitutes an unreasonable trespassory search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?”…
Continue Reading New 4A Property Rights Cert Petition: Govt GPSing Your Boat Is Warrantless Search

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)