October 2018

20170918_192854

Just out of the Knick arguments. Full report to come later. But for now, these thoughts:

College of Surgeons – D.O.A. I think there’s a consensus to overrule the case to the extent it allows municipalities to remove takings cases to federal court. 

San Remo – On life support. I think also that there may be enough votes to overrule the Catch-22 aspects of that case and the preclusion/full faith and credit trap. 

Here’s the federal government’s position, in a nutshell:

2j7vra

Justice Kagan, like us, found that distinction hard to swallow. 

Justice Bryer quote of the day: “why not let sleeping dogs lie?” (Asking about stare decisis.)

As for the “big” issue of whether the Court will overrule Williamson County? Too close to call. We didn’t see an obvious majority forming around anything but overruling Chicago and San Remo. No Justice seemed to like Williamson County too much (except…

Continue Reading Meanwhile Back At 1 First Street … Hot Take On The Knick Arguments

6a00d83451707369e20223c85004e4200c-800wi

I’m not going to do an in-depth preview of tomorrow’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 for several reasons.

First, a lot of others have summarized the issues already, far better than I can. See the list below.

Second, I filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Ms. Knick, and that brief pretty much sums up my thinking about the case. Williamson County ripeness is something I’ve railed on for a while, and there’s no need for me to say it once again.

Finally, I’m attending the arguments tomorrow with my William and Mary Law class, (they get to see the sausage being made!) and am keeping my powder dry for a post-argument report from the scene. 

First, the previews, followed by some brief thoughts:

  • Read the merits and amici briefs (all 21 of them!) here 

…
Continue Reading Knick Preview: Reevaluating Williamson County Ripeness With An Eight-Justice Court – Just How Badly Can SCOTUS Screw Up Takings Law?