Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

A new article worthy of your time from The Urban Lawyer, the law review published by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law: “The Power of Eminent Domain in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Should Common Interest Communities Be Compensated for the Loss of Asssments,” by James R. Conde.

The article (rightly, we think) criticizes the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, 705 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013), a case we wrote up here. The Supreme Court denied review, 

Here’s the abstract of the article:

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and destroyed approximately 80% of the city’s housing stock. The New Orleans flood generated a corresponding flood of litigation against the Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”). After the storm, Congress took steps to repair the Corps’ impaired reputation and to provide disaster relief to…

Continue Reading New Article: “Eminent Domain in The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina”

Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F069145 (June 3, 2015), is one especially for you Californians, addressing the somewhat unusual process under state law for challenging a land use action by local government which is claimed to take property.

Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 876 P.2d 1043 (Cal. 1994), before a landowner can seek just compensation for a regulatory taking, it must first challenge the validity of the action using the writ of mandate procedure (administrative appeal to all you non-Californians), to allow the agency the chance to rescind the act. The property owner may — but need not — join to the writ of mandate a claim for damages (just compensation), and raise the claims concurrently.

Sometimes plaintiffs do join both claims in a single complaint, sometimes they don’t. Hensler is considered an exception to the usual rule prohibiting…

Continue Reading Cal App: Mandamus Challenge To Validity Of Govt Action Must Include Takings Claim

Third time around for Lost Tree’s takings case against the federal government on this blog.

The first was the Federal Circuit’s decision concluding that a single Florida parcel owned by the plaintiff was the relevant parcel against which the impact of the Corps of Engineers’ denial of a § 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit is to be measured. The court overturned a Court of Federal Claims decision which concluded the relevant parcel was that single plot plus an additional nearby lot, plus “scattered wetlands in the vicinity” also owned by the same owner. 

Second was the Court of Federal Claims, which on remand held that there was a taking, and that, after applying either the Lucas total wipeout or the Penn Central ad hoc test (the diminution in value caused by the denial of the permit was 99.4%), the just compensation owed to Lost Tree was in the neighborhood…

Continue Reading Fed Cir: “Economically Beneficial Use” Means More Than Someone Might Buy The Property

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, a takings claim against the federal government which was dismissed by the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, the statute which deprives the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over a case if a related case is pending in another court at the time the CFC complaint is filed.

The core issue is one we’ve dealt with extensively before, and which the Supreme Court dodged in in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), namely, whether § 1500’s jurisdictional bar operates in takings claims, which are required to be split between the CFC and the district courts (aka the “Tucker Act Shuffle”). We filed an amicus brief in that case, arguing that the statute cannot be read to deprive takings plaintiffs of their right to secure just compensation, when they may be required…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Revisiting Tohono And § 1500 In Federal Takings Claims

For those of you who are members of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee (if you aren’t, you can become a member easily; just ask me how), please tune in on June 12, 2015 for our monthly teleconference.

Here’s the announcement:

Our third meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm EDT, and we will be featuring as our speaker, Robert Thomas, a land use lawyer and publisher of the law blog inversecondemnation.com (who is also the Chair of the Section’s Eminent Domain Committee) who will present a 20 minute program about the key takings case now awaiting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture. 

FREE Teleconference Sponsored by the Land Use Committee
Friday, June 12, 2015
2:00 p.m. EDT
Dial-in 888-3967955
Passcode 797687#

Everything a Land Use Lawyer Needs To Know About …

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars June 12, 2015: Free ABA Teleconference “Everything a Land Use Lawyer Needs To Know About Dancing California Raisins: A Report From the Oral Arguments in Horne v. USDA”

Not much new in the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-5069 (May 12, 2015), which upheld the dismissal of a Court of Federal Claims takings complaint for lack of jurisdiction under of 28 U.S.C. § 1500. 

That statute, as federal takings mavens know (and as the Supreme Court recently held in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011)), deprives the CFC of subject matter jurisdiction if there’s a claim based on the same operative facts “pending in any other court any suit or process.” In this takings case, the property owner filed its CFC complaint — which alleged that the feds’ denial of a Clean Water Act permit was a taking — while its lawsuit challenging the permit denial under the Administrative Procedures Act was still pending in the Ninth Circuit. Same underling facts and a pending…

Continue Reading Protip: File Your CFC Complaint First, And Then File Your District Court Action – Even If It Makes No Sense

Our American Bar Association colleague Ed Thomas (no relation, although we often joke that we’re probably cousins), the President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and a guy who acknowledges that the need to protect against natural disasters must take property rights into account, has compiled some thoughts about the Court of Federal Claims’ recent opinion in a case holding the federal government liable for the taking of property during Hurricane Katrina.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Major Court Decision with implications for Climate Adaptation, Hazard Mitigation and a Safer and More Just Future.

by Edward A. Thomas Esq., 
President, Natural Hazard Mitigation Association

May 7, 2015

On May 1, 2015, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an enormously important decision concerning flood damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes. That case, Saint Bernard Parish Government v. United States, No. 05-1119L (May 1. 2015), found the United States government liable for…

Continue Reading Guest Post: Katrina Flood Takings Decision Emphasizes Science

While we put the finishing touches on our full write-up of last week’s oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275 (we posted our initial thoughts after attending the Court’s session here), here are other summaries of the arguments:

  • “Supreme Court justices appear ready to rule against California raisin board” from the Los Angeles Times, isn’t a purely objective view of the case, and the “meta-message” (the Hornes are ingrates for challenging a program that benefits them) comes through loud and clear. The report also misunderstands the relief which the Hornes seek: “While it appeared clear a majority will side with Horne, it is not clear what this means for other farm products, or even what compensation he is due.” We hope this misconception doesn’t carry over to the Justices, since the Hornes are not seeking just compensation in this action, and only argue that

…
Continue Reading Horne Oral Argument Round-Up

Pic_shot_1429716535697

We were in the neighborhood, so decided to drop in on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the case about the taking of California raisins. 

The arguments ended a few minutes ago, and here’s our initial thoughts:

  • The Leviathan of the regulatory state was on full display today, with the government arguing that the seizure of the raisins wasn’t a taking, it was an “in-kind tax” and “just a standard regulation.”
  • The government actually argued that these regulations benefitted the Hornes, and that they were free to do other things with their grapes if they didn’t like the raisin regulations and government seizure.
  • The Monsanto and Leonard cases will figure prominently in the opinions. Read them again. 
  • Our initial tally: there’s enough votes to find that the USDA cannot fine the Hornes for violating the regulations because to do so would be a taking.

…
Continue Reading SCOTUS Oral Arguments In Horne (Taking California Raisins) – First Report

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the second time this case has been to the Court. 

The first time around, the unanimous Court held that the Hornes could raise the Takings clause as a defense to the USDA’s action to enforce a regulatory scheme that Justice Kagan characterized as perhaps “the world’s most outdated law,” and which was derided by Justice Scalia as “a crazy statute.”

The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit, which, to no one’s real surprise, held that the scheme was not a taking. The Court again granted cert to consider these Questions Presented:

  1. Does the government’s “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511, 518 (2012),

…
Continue Reading Raisin Takings Case Round II: Oral Argument Preview