Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

As expected, a quick decision and opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, after yesterday’s hearing on the plaintiff’s request for extraordinary preliminary relief (a TRO and PI) in the case challenging the Hawaii Governor’s imposition of a 14-day self-quarantine on all travelers inbound to Hawaii (and other emergency orders, although the TRO request was limited to the quarantine).

When the opinion starts this way, you know which way it is headed:

Claiming that there is no emergency in Hawai‘i or the United States, Plaintiffs seek temporary injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from enforcing the 14-day quarantine requirements of the Emergency Proclamations and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Op. at 1-2 (footnote omitted). I’m not sure that’s exactly what the plaintiffs were arguing (“no emergency” anywhere), but you get the drift.

The Governor challenged the plaintiffs’ standing (they have not…

Continue Reading Federal Court Denies TRO: Hawaii Gov’s Coronavirus Travel Quarantine Doesn’t Stop Anyone From Coming To Hawaii

Last we checked in, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has granted the Hawaii Attorney General’s request to hold an in-person hearing on the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief in the case challenging Governor Ige’s COVID-19 related orders (including travel quarantine). Unfortunately, that meant that those of us not able or willing to visit the courthouse in person would not be able to listen in.

Well thank you, Judge, for zagging back, and yesterday opening up the hearing to the public via telephone again. Here’s the latest court order, on how today’s hearing is going to go:

EO: The Court CONVERTS the hearing on Plaintiffs’ 12 Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue from an in-person/telephonic hearing to one by video conference.

The courtroom manager will provide participants with instructions and information to connect by video…

Continue Reading Zigging And Zagging: Federal Court Hearing On Challenge To Hawaii Gov’s COVID Orders Is Back On-Line

We joined friend and colleague Clint Schumacher for the milestone 50th episode of his essential Eminent Domain Podcast. 

If you are not already a subscriber and regular listener, you should be. Clint features interesting guests (present company excepted) and listening in is a good way to keep our community together, especially when many of us may be feeling isolated and shut off from our friends and fellow property law travelers.

The 50th Episode is indeed a milestone. Anyone who has tried it knows that putting together a podcast is nowhere near as simple as you might think. Scheduling guests. Getting the sound right. Mixing boards. Editing it so the guest doesn’t sound completely illiterate (thanks for removing the “you knows” and “uhhhhhs,” Clint). Bumper music. So thank you Clint, for providing this service for the rest of us. (If you have any suggestions for guests or topics, be sure…

Continue Reading We Join Clint Schumacher For The 50th Episode Of The Eminent Domain Podcast To Talk COVID Takings

OK, takings mavens, what’s your guess on whether a court would conclude there’s been a taking when a state bans “rapid fire trigger activators” (“devices that, when attached to a firearm, increase its rate of fire or trigger activation”)?

Under the law, it is a crime to “manufacture, possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive” that kind of device, and you can’t transport one into the state. The plaintiffs are folks who owned a device, plus an organization (Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.).

If you guessed “no taking,” you would have accurately predicted the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan, No. 18-2474 (June 29, 2020), which held there was not a taking under either the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment, or the Maryland Constitution. Oh, and MSI, Inc. didn’t have organizational standing.

The takings part of the opinion starts on page 13. We’ll leave it…

Continue Reading CA4 (Over Dissent): No Taking When Maryland Outlawed “Rapid Fire Trigger Activators”

Here’s the amicus brief filed yesterday in a Virginia Supreme Court case we’ve been following.

This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. Several Nansemond River oystermen own a lease from the state for the riverbed, which among other things, allows them to harvest some of the oysters that Virginia is so well known for. But they were forced to bring an inverse condemnation claim in state court, asserting that the City’s dumping of wastewater in the river — and prohibiting the harvesting of oysters during those times — was a taking under the Virginia Constitution’s taking or damaging clause (article I, § 11).

The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer, accepting the City’s argument that it has the right to pollute the river, based in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Darling v. City of Newport News, 249 …

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Virginia Oyster Takings Case: City’s Purposeful Pollution Of River Is A Taking Under The Virginia Constitution

Please plan on joining us on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, at 1pm ET (10am PT) for a long-form program on “Emergency and Police Power: Property Claims in Times of Crisis.”

Our speakers are Professors Craig Konnoth (Colorado) and John Nolon (Pace), and one of the lawyers on the forefront of the nationwide legal challenges, Harmeet Dhillon (San Francisco). I’ll be moderating, along with Professor Sarah Adams-Schoen (Oregon).

Here’s the program description:

On the eve of the centennial of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (US 1922), this panel will revisit the question: How far can the police power be stretched to protect the public against dangers? The panel will evaluate the scope of state and local authority to respond to emergencies and the implications for private property rights—asking, how far is too far? What is the scope of implied limitations on private property rights in times of crisis? When…

Continue Reading July 22, 2020: “Emergency and Police Power: Property Claims in Times of Crisis” (ABA Webinar)

As we noted here, property owners sued the New York governor asserting that one of his emergency measures to respond to the coronavirus crisis (a suspension of eviction proceedings) is a taking.

Yesterday, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and entered summary judgment in favor of the governor. Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Elmsford Apt. Assocs., LLC v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-4062 (CM) (June 29, 2020).

No physical take (see Yee: you invited the tenants in, owners). And no regulatory taking either because — you guessed correctly — this is “temporary” and Tahoe-Sierra. When this is all done, no-harm, no-foul. And not a Lucas taking because the restrictions left the owners with some use and value, so this is a Penn Central analysis. And you can guess where the Penn Central analysis leads, no?…

Continue Reading SDNY: No Taking For NY’s Eviction Moratorium (It’s Temporary, And You Invited Them In Landlords)

Lech

The Supreme Court today declined to review a Tenth Circuit decision that held a municipality could not be liable for a taking when its police officers pretty much destroyed a house in the course of dislodging a suspect who had holed up there. 

Along with our colleague Bill DeVinney, we filed an amicus brief in support of the homeowner, arguing that an invocation of “police power” isn’t the only question in these kind of cases, and the government’s assertion that it destroyed property for a police power purpose is but one of the factors a court considers when an owner asserts the destruction resulted in a taking. Police power may be a compelling factor militating against compensation. But it should never be the sole factor, as the Tenth Circuit concluded.

We had hoped that the Court would take notice of this case because after after the petition was filed, the…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Police Power Takings Case (Lech v. Greenwood Village)

Timothy Harris (Seattle U.) has posted his forthcoming article (Loyola L.A. L. Rev.) about takings and coronavirus shut downs. Well worth a read, and adds to the growing list of scholarly inquiry into the question, which includes Prof. Shai Stern’s “Pandemic Takings: Compensating for Public Health Emergency Regulation,” and our own “Evaluating Emergency Takings: Flattening The Economic Curve.

Here’s the abstract of Prof. Harris’ article:

The 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic and the ensuing shutdown of private businesses — to promote the public’s health and safety — demonstrated the wide reach of state and local governments’ police power. Many businesses closed and many went bankrupt as various government programs failed to keep their enterprises afloat.

These businesses were shut down to further the national interest in stemming a global pandemic. This is an archetypal example of regulating for the public health – preventing a direct threat that sickened…

Continue Reading New Article: “The Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown and Distributive Justice: Why Courts Should Refocus the Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis”

Here’s the latest in the remaining federal court challenge to Hawaii Governor David Ige’s coronavirus-related series of orders which, among other things, suspended a wide range of statutes, ordered activities deemed “nonessential” to stop or be limited, imposed a two-week self-quarantine on interisland, mainland, and international travelers, effectively shut down one of the main engines of the Hawaii economy—tourism, and compelled most residents to remain at home as much as possible and avoid large indoor gatherings.

The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, and the court scheduled a hearing for Thursday, July 2, 2020. Apparently, the hearing was originally planned to be “virtual,” with the lawyers and parties participating by Zoom, while the public could listen in (audio only) via telephone.

But then yesterday, the Hawaii Attorney General asked the court for “an adjustment to the format” of the hearing, to allow the AG to appear in person. The …

Continue Reading Hawaii AG: For The Hearing At Which I Will Argue That Indoor In-Person Gatherings Are Dangerous, Let’s Gather Indoors In-Person!