property rights

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)

Here’s what’s on our radar screen today: Anthony Flint, How Zoning Won (Bloomberg) (“In 1926, the Supreme Court’s Euclid decision enshrined zoning in US cities. On its 100th anniversary, academics gathered to reflect on the landmark ruling’s mixed legacy.”)
Continue Reading Today’s Dirt Law Round-Up: Zoning, Public Use, and Penn Central History

Check out this cert petition filed yesterday. It’s from our shop, so we’re not going to be commenting much. The issue is one that the Supreme Court has expressed an interest in, but the last time it was before the Court a few years ago, the Justices decided to wait for the next case. Well, here’s the next case.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Do Indian Tribes Have Greater Sovereign Immunity Than Other Governments?

Here’s the Reply Brief in a case we’ve been following (naturally, because it is one of ours).

This is the case where the Court is reviewing the question of the amount of just compensation the county is obligated to provide, if any, for seizing the title to, and then auctioning off Pung’s property to satisfy his debt for unpaid property taxes. The county asserts Pung is entitled to only the proceeds, if any, from the auction (no matter what). Pung asserts he is entitled to just compensation, and that the lower court erroneously presumed that the auction proceeds met that standard.
Continue Reading “The Fifth Amendment does not require an auction; it requires payment of just compensation” – Owner’s Reply In SCOTUS Just Comp/Excessive Fines Case

Today’s the day, 193 years ago, when — a mere 5 days after oral arguments — the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous opinion in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).

Generations of law students study this decision in their Con Law classes, and it is mostly known as the case in which the Court held that the Bill of Rights limits only the federal government and does not limit the power of states. For the latter, one must look to state constitutions.

Continue Reading (Unhappy) 193d Birthday To Barron v. Baltimore, SCOTUS’s First Takings Case

We’re spending the day at the alma mater, talking alongside some of the luminaries in the field (lawprofs Thomas Mitchell, Henry Smith, John Inafranca, Thomas Merrill, and Pamela Sameulson, among others) about our favorite topics: dirt law and property rights. This is the “Future of Property Rights” Conference that we mentioned not long ago at the University of Hawaii Law School.
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School

Check it out, an in-progress piece from lawprof Molly Brady, “Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in Wolford.”

This delves into the issue we posted about last week, the Second Amendment and the right to exclude, an issue argued recently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue Reading New Article (Lawprof Molly Brady): “Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in Wolford”

Check this out, a new cert petition filed yesterday.

As the title of this post notes, this is one of ours. So we won’t be making substantial commentary on it.

But we can say that a sharply-divided Arkansas Supreme Court held that BAS’s Tyler takings claim for the State Lands Commissioner’s failure to return

In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking.
Continue Reading CA6: Denial Of Rezoning Is Not A Penn Central Taking