2024

Screenshot 2024-04-09 at 12-04-36 https __pd.pacificlegal.org (Small)

Have thoughts about where regulatory takings are (or should be) headed? Here’s your chance to get in on the conversation, and to shape the future of the law.

Our outfit, the Pacific Legal Foundation, in cooperation with the Antonin Scalia Law School’s Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy, are calling for papers on “Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings.” There will be an in-person discussion of these papers at the Law School in October 2024.

Here’s the full description:

A century ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, assured us that “[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” In the ensuing one hundred years, courts have struggled to draw the line defining “too far.” Some still wonder whether such a line should even exist. As Justice…

Continue Reading Commit To Submit: Call For Papers “Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings”

A quick one from the Arizona Supreme Court that isn’t so much a true takings case, but more like “takings adjacent.” In our view, it well illustrates the way that takings arguments can shape how statutes are interpreted, even if there isn’t a taking.

The case — Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, No. CV-22-0228-PR (Mar. 22, 2024) — was shaping up to be more in our area of operations because the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide this question (and others):

Either on its face or as applied in this case, does A.R.S. § 33-1228 authorize the taking of private property for private use in violation of Article 2, § 17 of the Arizona Constitution?

Seemed promising. The statute says that when property organized as a condominium regime decides to wind up and abandon the condominium format, the condo association shall sell “all the common elements and…

Continue Reading Condo Forced-Sale Statute Is Not A Taking Because It Does Not Allow Picking Off Individual Units, But Requires Sale Of Entire Condo

Here’s one about Lucas “background principles” of property law, or maybe the Supreme Court’s current focus on “history and tradition” when it comes to defining private property for purposes of the Takings Clause. 

In So. Cal. Edison Co. v. Orange County Transp. Auth., No. 22-55498 (Mar. 13, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment denying a takings claim by a public utility which sought compensation after the County ordered it to move its equipment off of a public right-of-way for a streetcar line at its own expense.

The utility raised a physical takings claim, but the court didn’t get to that issue, instead focusing on whether it owned property. The court noted that state law “generally” defines property but, citing Tyler, held that there are certain “traditional property law principles” and “historical practices” about…

Continue Reading CA9: “Traditional common law rule” That Utilities Bear The Cost Of Relocating From Public Right-of-Way Isn’t A Taking

Here’s what we’re reading today:

…
Continue Reading Thursday Round Up: Pretextual Takings, Squatting, Unconstitutional Conditions

There’s a lot going on in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s opinion in Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, No. 23-1072 (Mar. 7, 2024), involving a challenge to a Rhode Island statute outlawing possession of certain large capacity gun magazines.

But unsurprisingly, we’re going to be most interested in how the court disposed of the takings challenge.

In 2022 Rhode Island added detachable “large capacity magazines” (those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition) to its existing list of can’t-own-or-possess items. If you already owned or possessed one of these things, the law gave you four options: (1) modify the mag so it will hold 10 or less rounds; (2) sell the items to a federally-licensed firearms dealer or someone out of state; (3) give ’em to an out-of-stater (Connecticut gun aficionados, you are in luck!); (4) give ’em to Five-O. There’s…

Continue Reading CA1: No Taking When State Banned Possession Of Big Scary Gun Magazines

Under many (most?) state eminent domain schemes, if a property owner withdraws the condemnor’s deposit prior to the judgment of condemnation, the owner waives — or, more technically, forfeits — the ability to challenge public use and necessity. 

Vermont is no different, and under its statute, waiver is triggered by the owner’s “acceptance and use” of a payment:

Except in the case of agreed compensation, an owner’s acceptance and use of a payment under this section does not affect his or her right to contest or appeal damages under sections 511-513 of this chapter but shall bar the owner’s right to contest necessity and public purpose.

19 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 506(c).

The Vermont Agency of Transportation was doing one of those interstate interchange reconstruction projects, and needed some nearby property. After some procedural wrangling about which property owners need to be included in the case, it sent the…

Continue Reading Vermont: It Doesn’t Matter If Property Owner Realizes That Cashing A Check For Estimated Compensation Waives Public Use Challenge

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division’s opinion in HBC Victor LLC v. Town of Victor, No. 23-01347 (Mar. 22, 2024) marks the second time the issue of whether the Town can seize HBC’s property by eminent domain.

The first time out the court shot down the taking, concluding that it lacked a valid public use because the Town did not have a present plan for the property and the resolution of taking did not specify the present purpose other than “redevelopment.” And that isn’t enough.

As you know, that doesn’t mean the end of the line when it comes to eminent domain. As we often used to counsel clients when we did this stuff, beating back a taking on public use grounds just educates the condemnor about the shortcomings. Unlike other civil litigation, there’s no res judicata (sorry kids, that’s what we still call it) in eminent domain…

Continue Reading NY App Div: Yes, We Previously Said This Taking Wasn’t For A Public Use, But Now The Condemnor Has A Plan

Even if the world were open today, the doors to most Hawaii state, county, and city offices would still be locked. Because Friday, March 29, 2024 is the day that Hawaii celebrates Good Friday.

Yes, Good Friday is an an official state-sanctioned holiday in the 808 area code, so we’re reposting our annual recounting of how it came to be that the State commemorates the date of the crucifixion, and how that squares with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Turns out that we don’t really commemorate Good Friday as the crucifixion date, and it is just coincidence that the official State “spring holiday” occurs on the same day. (And this being Hawaii, in the end it’s really a public worker union thing like a lot of things.)

Good Friday is a legal holiday in the State of Hawaii pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 8-1.

Continue Reading Today Is Hawaii’s Secular Good Friday Holiday – What’s Up With That?

Screenshot 2024-03-26 at 09-12-12 Meme Generator - Imgflip

Check this out: lawprof Ilya Somin has posted “Squatters’ Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause” at Volokh.

His thesis is just as the title suggests, arguing that state statutes that treat trespassers as tenants are government-authorized physical occupations, and thus are takings:

Ideally, state and local governments should make it easy for property owners to swiftly remove squatters, and should subject the trespassers to civil and criminal sanctions. But where they instead facilitate this violation of property rights, the laws that do so violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires payment of “just compensation” whenever the government takes “private property.”

Professor Somin relies on Cedar Point, and addresses the narrow exception to the general rule from that case that all physical invasions and occupations are takings without regard to the diminution in use or value or the owner’s expectations, where the government had enabled…

Continue Reading Lawprof Ilya Somin: “Squatters’ Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause”

New York state, as you might already know, regulates the rent an owner of residential property may charge to a tenant. Under a statute adopted in 1974, regulation is triggered by a locality’s declaration of a housing emergency, and the restrictions extend for the duration of the declared emergency. Most famously — or infamously — New York City has declared a housing emergency under the statute since that time, and indeed has considered housing an “emergency” for over a century. The 1974 statute also applied to three other NYC-adjacent counties, but not the entire Empire State.

Well, in 2019 the legislature changed that, and “allowed municipalities statewide to opt in to the rent adjustment scheme created by the [1974 Emergency statute] upon a declaration of emergency due to a housing vacancy rate of 5% or less[.]”

In 2019, Kingston was thwarted when it determined its vacancy rate was 6.7% —…

Continue Reading NY App Div: Inflation, Bah! Rent Gets Cheaper In Kingston!