December 2025

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is a product of our shop: we represent the property owners/plaintiffs).

In this Order, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeals en banc opinion in Shands v. City of Marathon. So that decision stands.

This is the case in which the Shands Family, the owners of Shands Key — a small island in the City of Marathon (about 1/2 way down the Overseas Highway in the Florida Keys) — asserted that the City’s downzoning their property from a density that allowed residential development to a density that doesn’t (Shands Key is below the minimum lot size under the downzoning), is a Lucas taking.

The court of appeal rejected the City’s claim that beekeeping and overnight camping were possible uses of the property under the downzoning, thus exempting it…

Continue Reading Fla SCT Declines Review: En Banc Court Of Appeal Decision That Downzoning Was A Lucas Taking (And Sale Of Property For Third-Party TDRs Is Not A “Use”), Stands

If you were creating a moot court problem, what topic would you pick? You’d want a question that is a hot topic. Unresolved by the Supreme Court. Controversial, interesting, and complex.

Well, we have just the issue for you: our favorite topic, takings.

That appears to be what the powers-that-be behind Harvard Law School’s moot court competition believed, because according to this report (Rachel Reed, “Harvard Law students battle for honors at the 2025 Ames Moot Court Competition,” Harvard Law Today (Nov. 19, 2025)), the student teams were confronted with a case where there was a clear taking (the commandeering and take-over of a hand sanitizer plant during Co-19), but the plant owner was denied a remedy because the defendant is the (fictional) State of Ames.

Ah yes, the question the Court dodged recently in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): may an owner whose property…

Continue Reading Harvard Law School’s Moot Court Problem This Year? Takings.

Check out a newly-published law review article by lawprof Timothy Harris, “The Contracts Clause Can be Enforced via Section 1983, Period: The Nonexistent Circuit Court ‘Split’,” 78 SMU L. Rev. Forum 106 (2025).

The article delves into the issue of whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the cause of action to bring a Contracts Clause challenge. The Contracts Clause prohibits states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and the fundamental question to be answered is whether your Contracts Clause rights are “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as described in section 1983.

Here’s the Abstract:

The Federal Circuit Courts are apparently split on whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983—which provides a civil cause of action for constitutional deprivation of rights— applies to actions brought under the Contracts Clause in article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The “split” has existed since…

Continue Reading New Article: Timothy Harris, “The Contracts Clause Can be Enforced via Section 1983, Period: The Nonexistent Circuit Court ‘Split’,” 78 SMU L. Rev. Forum 106 (2025)

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. [Disclosure: this is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting much at all.]

In Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering these Questions Presented:

1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value?

2. Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed?

(Here’s the cert petition.)

Today, the petitioner filed the merits brief, arguing that yes, “[w]hen…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Merits Brief (Ours) In Just Comp/Excessive Fines Case