- Texans tangle over municipal ordinances requiring preservation of trees on private land [Mindy Fetterman, Huffington Post]
- WOTUS, SCOTUS, and POTUS: “The Supreme Court wrestles again with the Clean Water Act’s due process deficit” [Jonathan Wood, earlier]
- Florida turned land into bird sanctuary without owners’ consent. As compensation it gave them “points.” Takings review needed [Ilya Shapiro and Meggan DeWitt, Cato on Ganson v. City of Marathon and Trevor Burrus’s first official brief] Alas, SCOTUS has denied certiorari on two other property rights cases, 616 Croft Ave. v. City of West Hollywood and Wayside Church v. Van Buren County;
- “How Suburban Parking Requirements Hold Back Downtown” [Nolan Gray, Market Urbanism]
- “Does the Constitution Provide a Substantive Due-Process Right to a Stable Climate System?” [Andrew R. Varcoe, WLF]
- Short Circuit: “Does Texas’ delegation of its eminent domain power to private pipeline companies violate the Due Process Clause? Probably not, according to this Fifth Circuit panel.” [John Ross, Short Circuit, on Boerschig v. Trans-Pecos Pipeline]
Posts Tagged ‘eminent domain’
Environment roundup
- Seattle will ban restaurants from giving plastic straws [Christian Britschgi]
- Big money in climate inquisition? Lawyers with contingency-fee role in AGs’ carbon campaign join Hagens Berman [Scott Flaherty, American Lawyer; earlier on climate lawyers on contingency fee here and here]
- Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, 2008, includes entries on urban planning by Mark Pennington and on eminent domain and takings by Karol Boudreaux;
- California legislature’s $1.5 billion green Christmas tree includes bill “aimed at helping a union looking to organize workers who assemble Tesla electric cars in Fremont” [AP]
- Michigan AG Schuette indicts state human services chief Nick Lyon in Flint water case, and a prominent Democrat and Republican both take exception to that [Kathleen Gray, Detroit Free Press (former AG Frank Kelley); Maura Corrigan]
- “You Should Be Able to Vindicate Federal Property Rights in Federal Court” [Ilya Shapiro and Meggan DeWitt, Cato on Wayside Church v. Van Buren County]
Land use and development roundup
- “Expanding housing and job opportunities by cutting back on zoning” [Ilya Somin on Ed Glaeser Brookings essay]
- Always hold back and let the government do it. That way the $550 stairs can be built for $65,000-$150,000 [CTV, CBC, sequel: city of Toronto tears down stairs] Some reasons why even without NIMBY or funding constraints, government infrastructure projects can be hard to get done [Coyote]
- Cities dressed up retail malls as “public use” to justify land takings. Many courts went along. Not looking so good now [Gideon Kanner]
- “Is inclusionary zoning legal?” [Emily Hamilton, Market Urbanism] Rejoinder: constitutional attacks on this type of zoning modification will make libertarians sorry if localities just go back to strict zoning [Rick Hills, PrawfsBlawg]
- House Natural Resources Committee hears testimony on package of reforms to Endangered Species Act [Michael Sandoval, Western Wire]
- Are takings claimants entitled to have suits heard in an Article III court? [Robert Thomas, Inverse Condemnation]
Constitutional law roundup
- In name of suicide prevention, Oregon plans to use emergency one-sided hearsay proceedings to take away gun rights [Christian Britschgi, Reason]
- Past Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) readings of Emoluments Clause fall between extreme positions of CREW on the one hand and Trump White House on the other [Jane Chong/Lawfare, earlier]
- “Yes, Justice Thomas, the doctrine of regulatory takings is originalist” [James Burling, PLF] On the Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin (earlier), see also Robert Thomas at his Inverse Condemnation blog here, here, and here;
- Notwithstanding SCOTUS decision in Pavan v. Brown just four days before, Texas Supreme Court intends to take its time spelling out to litigants the implications of Obergefell for municipal employee benefits [Josh Blackman (plus more), Dale Carpenter on Pidgeon v. Turner] Why the Supreme Court is not going to snatch back Obergefell at this point [David Lat]
- Tariff-like barrier: California commercial fishing license fees are stacked against out-of-staters [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald, Cato]
- H.L. Mencken writes a constitution, 1937 [Sam Bray, Volokh]
Land use and environment roundup
- “Trump promises ‘massive permit reform’ in infrastructure bill” [Melanie Zanona, The Hill]
- Murr v. Wisconsin: landowner subjected to forced multi-parcel grouping loses regulatory takings case 5-3, Kennedy writing [opinion, Cato brief, Roger Pilon (Penn Central takings case was a train wreck, and SCOTUS should stop trying to build on it) and more, Ilya Somin (multi-factorial test proffered by Kennedy “a recipe for confusion, uncertainty, and constant litigation”), Gideon Kanner, Robert H. Thomas/Inverse Condemnation]
- Congressional Delegation: ‘Our Home State Of Utah Has Repeatedly Fallen Victim To Overreaching Use Of The Antiquities Act’ [Aileen Yeung, Western Wire]
- “Towards a Private Flood Insurance Market” [Ike Brannon, Cato]
- Attorneys general of 21 states hail EPA move to rescind overreaching WOTUS (Waters of the United States) power grab [West Virginia Record, earlier]
- More research on how urban building restrictions drive up housing prices, harm younger and poorer residents and newcomers, misallocate labor geographically, widen inequality [Tyler Cowen on work by Andrii Parkhomenko, Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti, Lyman Stone]
Environment roundup
- Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit procedure can “be a huge money maker” for private groups: “Policing for profit in private environmental enforcement” [Jonathan Wood]
- “Chicago Alderman Tells Property Owners to ‘Come Back to Me on Your Knees’ or Face Zoning Changes” [Eric Boehm, Reason]
- Wetlands: “Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field” [Damon Arthur, Redding Record-Searchlight]
- Urban bike lanes are green religious monuments, writes Arnold Kling, a biker himself;
- Climate change shareholder disclosure: “Class action lawyers have become very clever at developing these cases for profit.” [Nina Chestney, Reuters]
- “Why full compensation for property owners might lead to more unlawful takings” [Ilya Somin]
Georgia: deregulating ride-share was not a “taking”
The Georgia high court has unanimously rejected a taxi industry suit arguing that the legalization of ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, by undercutting the monopoly power of Atlanta taxi medallions and other legal entitlements, amounts to a taking for which the state owes them compensation [Nick Sibilla, Forbes]
Murr v. Wisconsin: is taking a sub-parcel of land compensable?
On Monday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin, a case over whether Wisconsin should have to pay for a partial taking of land:
Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment. Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has “taken” the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the “relevant parcel” of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the government. Another amicus brief, filed by Nevada and eight other states and co-authored by Ilya Somin, argues that the Wisconsin court’s rule “creates significant perverse incentives for both landowners and regulators.”
Last Friday Cato held a panel discussion on the case, introduced by Todd Gaziano of Pacific Legal Foundation, with Roger Pilon of Cato, Michael Pappas of the University of Maryland, and Ilya Somin, Scalia/George Mason Law School, with Cato’s Ilya Shapiro moderating. On Monday the Wall Street Journal published Roger Pilon’s opinion piece on the case. More: Ilya Somin, Rick Hills.
Seattle law strips landlords of choice of tenants
Appalling: a new law in Seattle aims to strip property owners of all choice among tenant applicants, requiring them to take the first comer who meets their preannounced guidelines. Does it violate the Constitution? The Pacific Legal Foundation intends to find out on behalf of Chong and MariLyn Yim. [Daniel Beekman, Seattle Times] When the law was under consideration, a council member objected — on the grounds that the city should instead consider requiring the owners to institute a lottery, rather than a first-come-first-served rule. Part of the rationale of the law is to combat “unconscious bias” [Ethan Blevins, PLF] More: Jeb Kinnison in August.
Environment roundup
- Here come big, beautiful eminent domain cases over condemnation of land for the US-Mexico wall [Gideon Kanner, Ilya Somin]
- Judge greenlights “public trust” climate change suit, an exercise in court- and lawyer-empowerment [Samuel Boxerman, WLF]
- Next Friday, Mar. 17, Cato will host panel on pending SCOTUS case of Murr v. Wisconsin (property rights, regulatory takings) with Roger Pilon (Cato), J. Peter Byrne (Georgetown Law), and Ilya Somin (George Mason Law), with opening remarks by Todd Gaziano (Pacific Legal) and moderated by Ilya Shapiro (Cato) [register or watch online]
- Swallowing dubious health claims, Maryland advisory panel urges schools to turn off wi-fi. Plenty wrong with that [ACSH]
- By 31-69 margin, Los Angeles voters crush anti-development Measure S, “NIMBYism on steroids” [City Observatory, earlier]
- Tackling WOTUS is just the start: “The Clean Water Act Needs A Reset” [Reed Hopper, Investors, Jonathan Wood, related]