takings

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

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)

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

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

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