June 2020

Short answer: yes, with a caveat. For why there’s an asterisk on this one, take a look at the Supreme Court’s electronic docket for PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, No. 19-1039 (cert. petition Feb. 20, 2020) (a case we’ve been following), and tell me whether you think there’s anything unusual about the list of parties, amici, and their counsel.

SCOTUS Überlawyers? Check. Big well-funded parties? Check. Heavy-hitter amici? Check.

But the one thing missing, we noticed, was the property owners’ bar. No Mike Berger, neither of the Ilyas (Somin or Shapiro), no PLF, no IJ, no Carolyn Elefant, no Chris Johns, no NFIB, none of the other individuals or groups who often weigh in on property questions on either side (and yes, no Owners’ Counsel). This might strike you as odd, in a case where the Question Presented is about eminent domain:

Whether the NGA delegates…

Continue Reading Should Takings Mavens Follow The Latest Eminent Domain Case At SCOTUS?

EX A

Here’s the city’s Brief in Opposition in a case we’ve been following (so closely, in fact, that we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner – see “Amicus Brief: Invocation Of “Police Power” Is Not Dispositive In Takings“). A case in which the issues have taken on new and heightened importance.

This is the case where the municipal police pretty much destroyed a family home in the course of their efforts to dislodge a shoplifter who had taken refuge there while fleeing. The homeowner sought compensation for a taking. The Tenth Circuit, however, concluded “no taking” because the police were exercising the police power. And you can’t have a taking where the government is exercising the police power, right?

The homeowner filed a cert petition, arguing that “[t]he question presented is whether there is a categorical exception to the Just Compensation Clause when the …

Continue Reading BIO In “Police Power” Takings Case: Can A Municipality Be Liable For A Taking If The Police Destroy Private Property In The Course Of Apprehending A Suspect?


Here’s the recording of the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group teleforum we did a couple of weeks ago, “COVID-19 & Property Rights: Do Government Actions in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic Create Compensable Takings?” Stream above, or download it here.

The issue: how should courts evaluate the claims for compensation arising out of emergency measures? This question is on the front burner at the moment (and will continue to be because the courts will likely be confronted from these type of claims as the fallout continues). For example, here are some of the complaints that have been filed in courts around the nation: see here, here, here, here and here.  

The two featured speakers (Professor Ilya Somin and Professor F.E. Guerra-Pujol), not only debated and answered questions for an hour…

Continue Reading Podcast: COVID-19 & Property Rights: Do Government Actions in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic Create Compensable Takings?”

There’s a lot of opinion in the U.S. Court’s of Appeals’ opinion in Stratta v. Roe, No. 18-50994 (May 29, 2020). Yes, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of a takings claim. But most of the opinion is devoted to the question of whether a Texas water conservation board — an agency whose mission is to regulate surface water uses — may take advantage of the State of Texas’s 11th Amendment immunity (no, held the court). We recommend that part of the opinion to you, federal courts junkies.

But there’s a couple of takings gems in there also. The case involved a challenge by a property owner who was (allegedly) treated by the water conservation board less generously than an (allegedly) similarly-situated municipality, resulting in the owner’s inability to make use of its groundwater rights. (In short, a Pennsylvania Coal claim, where instead of coal being required to…

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit: Texas Groundwater Rights Are Takings Clause “Property”

Did you know that the North Carolina Constitution does not formally contain a “takings” or “just compensation” clause? Instead of an outright prohibition on uncompensated takings for public use, the N.C. Constitution has a “law of the land” clause:

Sec. 19.  Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

N.C. Const. art. I § 19.

The lack of an express takings clause, of course doesn’t t mean that the government can just take property and has no obligation to provide compensation.

Continue Reading NC Considering Constitutional Amendment: Compensation For Emergency Shut-Downs

Congratulations – if you understood this post’s headline, you are officially a rails-to-trails nerd. A super-nerd.

But even if not, you shouldn’t need a rails-to-trails nerd’s level of knowledge to understand and appreciate the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (May 29, 2020). It’s a case worth reading for all of us — nonnerds included — because it nicely gets into the weeds of takings doctrine. 

One observation before we begin. There are takings of a fee simple interest. Takings of less-than-a-fee interest, such as the taking of an easement. Partial takings where less than all of the owner’s property is taken, and there’s a remainder property. Temporal takings where the seizure is not forever (temporary takings vs permanent takings). Regulatory takings, inverse condemnations, per se (categorical) takings, physical takings and ad hoc (Penn Central) takings. And myriad combinations fo the…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Arkansas Game Did Not Overrule Ladd (NITUs Are Categorical Takings)