Appellate law

Subscribe to Appellate law via RSS

In Gould v. Interface, Inc., No. 23-12883 (Oct. 2, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was dealing with a claim for wrongful termination of a tech CEO.

So what’s the case doing here? Skip forward to page 12 of the slip opinion, where the court deals with an oft-occurring argument: the appellant “waived” (forfeited, actually) a claim by failing to pursue it below. The general rule is that a litigant can waive a claim, but not an argument.

Okay, got it. But again, why is this opinion posted here? Well, the example the court uses to illustrate the difference between a “claim” and an “argument” is the (in)famous takings case, Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992). Takings mavens know that Yee is often cited in support of the argument that things like rent control do not force property owners to allow…

Continue Reading A Reminder From CA11: There’s Only A Single Claim For A Regulatory Taking (Although There May Be Several Arguments)

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.

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

Check out this new (ish) cert petition which asks whether the “final decision” ripeness rule that currently governs regulatory takings cases is also applicable when the right alleged to have been violated is procedural due process.

The petition sets out how the lower federal courts have dealt with the question:

This case presents an important and recurring question that has divided the courts of appeals: whether procedural due process claims asserted in land-use disputes are subject to the same accrual rule as takings claims. Two circuits—the Second and Third—have held that they are. Five others—the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth—have held they are not.

Pet. at 2. This case reverses the usual dynamic in takings cases (where generally, owners assert the claim is ripe because the government has made it clear what uses it will and won’t allow), because the Second Circuit held that the case was ripe a…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Are Procedural Due Process Claims Subject To The Same Ripeness Rules As Takings Claims?

As part of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference being held next week at the William and Mary Law School, the student-run Real Estate Law Society is producing a very interesting program that offers a look back on Kelo v. City of New London, in this that case’s twentieth year.

We’re going to be rearguing the case in a Supreme Court moot, which will feature the lawyers for Susette Kelo — the Institute for Justice — rearguing her case to see if two decades of experience produces different arguments, or even a different outcome. Any guess who will be arguing the cause for the City of New London? That’s right, none other than Yours Truly (we promise not to “take a dive” and confess error on the City’s part — this is a moot court, after all!).

Serving as Moot Justices are academics, practitioners, and law students, including…

Continue Reading Kelo Reargued: Has 20 Years of Controversy Changed the Eminent Domain Debate?

The latest cert petition from Michael Berger, this time involving procedural due process and takings.

Here are the Questions Presented:

The City of Dana Point “red tagged” Petitioner’s motel and then had a receiver appointed to oversee its rehabilitation without ever providing notice of the hearing. Thereafter, it set the property for a foreclosure sale. It did all of this by means of “ex parte” proceedings that provided no formal notice or hearing. That raises serious due process issues, both procedural and substantive, as well as a taking of property without just compensation.

Question 1: When government acts without notice in a way that seriously impacts the rights of citizens, does the lack of constitutionally required notice deprive the victim of property without due process of law?

Question 2: Is it finally time to rein in California’s practice of ignoring this Court’s line of regulatory takings decisions, based…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: You Can’t Go Your Own Way On Takings, California

This just in: in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review two cases which involve property and property rights.

First, in Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the Court will be 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 in Pung. Note that the Court agreed to review the Excessive Fine…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Grants Two Property Rights Petitions

Here’s the cert petition which we filed recently. We won’t be saying much about this one because it is one of ours. 

But here’s the Question Presented, which pretty much says it all:

The City of Lathrup Village, Michigan, prohibits leasing commercial property without a license. But the City will not issue a license unless the property owner first discloses the names of prospective tenants and a description of the tenants’ principal business activity.

Petitioners omitted this information in a license application to comply with a nondisclosure provision in its lease agreements, were denied a license, and are therefore prohibited from renting their property. They sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the disclosure requirement as an unconstitutional “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.

The Sixth Circuit, joining the Fourth, held that “an alleged Contracts Clause violation cannot give rise to a cause of…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition – Time To Resolve Contract Clause Circuit Split: Can You Raise A Claim Via Section 1983?
Darby

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

The federal government has asked (and been granted), an extension of time in which to file a cert petition in the Darby case.

That’s the one in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed a claim that the federal government is liable for a physical taking for the Center for Disease Control’s residential eviction moratorium. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually invalidated the moratorium, and several property owners who were prevented from removing tenants are seeking just compensation. 

There’s nothing particularly earth-shattering about the government seeking more time. Indeed, it is rather routine. But the request included a somewhat unusual peek behind the Solicitor General curtain. We suppose the SG could have just asked for more time, and it would have been granted. But the request included an indication that there’s a bit of contention within…

Continue Reading Is A Gov’t Cert Petition In Darby (Eviction Moratorium Physical Takings) Forthcoming?

Here’s a recent cert petition which asks the Supreme Court to take up the case of a small property owner in West Hollywood, California, whose case was dismissed when he asked “[h]ow far can a city expand rent control to advance general socioeconomic policies before crossing constitutional property protections?” Pet. at 3. 

Here are the Questions Presented:

1.  Whether a municipality may transform temporary emergency rent restrictions and occupancy mandates adopted at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic into permanent rent control measures that expand benefits to tenants and the public at large at the expense of private property owners, without triggering scrutiny under the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

2.  Whether the denial of leave to amend, despite the viability of property claims for takings and due process violations, constituted an abuse of discretion under this Court’s liberal standard…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Expanding Temporary Emergency Measures Into Permanent Rent Control A Problem?