Check this out a newly-filed complaint, filed in a New York federal court, challenging New York’s ban on hydraulic fracking as a taking. Our firm represents the plaintiffs, so we won’t be saying much here. But we will point out that this one is very much like the O.G. modern takings case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
Continue Reading New Complaint: NY’s Fracking Ban Is A Penn Coal v. Mahon Taking
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. After a loss at the Eighth Circuit, the property owners have filed a cert petition.
This is the case where court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the city’s “blighted list” was not a regulatory taking. The city had issued citations for various code violations, sent compliance orders, and was apparently reacting to a fire on the premises.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Invoking “Police Power” Alone Doesn’t Avoid Takings
Here’s a recent cert petition involving an allegation that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), through what is called a “reinsurance” program, requires group health plans “to fork over $10 billion in plan assets.” Pet. at 1. The Federal Circuit held that this wasn’t a taking, merely an “obligation to pay money” and thus the plaintiffs lacked a private property interest. Money isn’t property, right?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Obamacare Reinsurance Requirement Is A Taking
Here’s Pacific Legal Foundation’s motion asking the Virginia Supreme Court to allow us to file a brief amicus curiae which urges the court to grant a discretionary appeal and review this Petition for Appeal by a Norfolk, Virginia homeowner who, according to the trial court, suffered a taking but was prevented from presenting all evidence of just compensation, including the “residue damage” required in partial takings by the Virginia Constitution.
Continue Reading Virginia Supreme Court Amicus: There’s A Difference Between Constitutional “Damagings” And Severance (Residue) Damages In Takings Just Compensation
Check it out, the latest volume of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal is now available, both in print for those who subscribe, and online for those who prefer the pdf versions. The pieces include something property rights for everyone: academic property, Supreme Court property practice, Contracts Clause, Zoning and Land Use, and Fourth Amendment.
Continue Reading Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal Vol. 14 Now Available
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