It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that in a few days, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to teach two courses: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools in the country that offer a course in eminent domain, just compensation, and takings) -and Land Use Controls (an especially hot topic at the moment).
Continue Reading Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season 9
Worth reading, if only for its somewhat odd logic is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago, No. 25-1713 (July 22, 2026), where the court upheld, against a takings challenge, a city requirement that anyone who acquires a rental property via foreclosure must either enter into new one-year leases with any existing tenant who desires to remain, or pay $10,600 if a tenant chooses to vacate.
Continue Reading CA7: Takings Claim “has something to it,” But City Requiring Owner Pay Relocation Fee To Tenants Is A “Clunky” Form Of Rent Control, So You Lose
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. (And an issue we’ve been following for a while.) [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief in that case in favor of the property owner.] In Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC, No. 090404 (N.J. July 20, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a taking where the stated public use was to acquire property for open space, but the condemned properties were not going be be so used, but instead would be used to swap with another private owner, so its property could be used for open space.
Continue Reading New Jersey: No Taking To Swap Land With Someone Else
Sad birthday wishes to what just might be our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 47 today. This in addition to the unhappy Kelo-versary earlier this week. A takings and regulatory takings one-two punch! Time has not treated the opinion well.
Continue Reading Unhappy 47th Anniversary, Penn Central
Here is what we’re reading today, comments and thoughts on yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pung v. Isabella County.
Continue Reading Pung Round-Up
This just in: the Supreme Court has decided Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95 (June 23, 2026). And the result — that “just compensation” for Tyler takings is usually measured by the surplus over the tax sale and not fair market value of the property, unless the tax sale process is unfair or skewed — isn’t the hoped-for outcome.
Continue Reading Pung Decided – “Just” Compensation May Not Always Mean Fair Market Value: “The Fifth Amendment protects the … right to surplus proceeds from the tax sale, not compensation for the property’s fair market value.”
It hardly seems like two decades-plus have passed. After all, it was a mere 10 years ago we were lamenting “Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor.” But yes, it was 21 years ago today … the U.S. Supreme Court, by the thinnest of margins, held in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (June 23, 2005) that there’s nothing inherently suspect about “economic development” takings to justify a higher level of judicial scrutiny than the judges-as-poodles standard of review applied in Public Use challenges to takings for every other reason
Continue Reading Kelo Hits 21 (And Gets Worse With Age)
An interesting one from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, No. 19-449 (June 5, 2026), is the latest in a string of decisions on the “bump stock” issue. You remember the issue: a “bump stock” is a device you can attach to a semi-automatic rifle to make it fire rapidly like a fully-automatic rifle.
Continue Reading CFC: Govt Ordering Destruction Of Bump Stocks Could Be A Physical Taking, But Not Exactly An Exaction
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever (and yes, it is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting). This morning the U.S. Supreme Court without comment denied the City of Marathon, Florida’s cert petition, which asked the Court to review an en banc opinion of the Florida District Court of Appeals which held that the City’s downzoning of Shands Key effected a Lucas taking as a deprivation of economically beneficial uses, notwithstanding that the property could be sold to a third party who could donate it to the city in return for some very watered-down transferable development rights (TDRs).
Continue Reading Good News: Lucas Cert Petition Denied – TDRs Go Only To Just Comp, Not Takings
Check out this recently-filed cert petition, which might be filed under government “keepings” as well as takings. In Greene v. Kansas Dep’t of Revenue, 576 P.3d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that the Department didn’t owe just compensation after it seized some of Greene’s property (the petition and the lower court’s opinion don’t really say what this property is, but we can presume it is some of the “potpourri substance named ‘Diablo’ that the Kansas Board of Pharmacy had deemed a controlled substance” that was at the heart of the tax dispute.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Temporarily Keeping Property Seized For Taxes After A Ruling The Taxes Were Not Owed Is A Taking