Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Here’s the Verified Complaint in a case recently filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey:

Plaintiffs Jenkinson’s Pavilion, a corporation of the State of New Jersey and Jenkinson’s South, Inc., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring this action, inter alia, (a) for a declaration as a matter of law that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACOE”) has not required, and does not require, for purposes of the “Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Storm Damage Reduction Project,” the acquisition of perpetual rights in privateproperty for purposes of establishing recreational public beaches landward of the area already subject to public ownership and rights of public user pursuant to the New Jersey Public Trust Doctrine, and (b) enjoining the Defendants from taking actions in furtherance of the “Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Storm Damage Reduction Project,” in advance of a determination on the relief…

Continue Reading Federal Court Challenge To NJ’s Beach Replenishment Plan

Biafora v. United States, No, 2013-5130 (Dec. 10, 2014), is one of those opinions that you don’t really look forward to reading. Something about the Federal Circuit seems to attract these type of takings cases, where the parties are many, the alphabet-soup regulatory environment is byzantine, and the effort of understanding the context often takes more time than figuring out what the court did, and why. 

But fret not, that’s why we’re here with the high points, so you don’t have to. 

This is another case involving the federal government’s legislative efforts to encourage private developers to build and manage low-income housing projects (see this post for an earlier iteration). Congress adopted statutes insuring mortgages on these projects in return for “a 40-year mortgage term, an agreement to maintain affordability restrictions on the housing for the duration of the mortgage, and prepayment limiations or prohibitions on the mortgage.” Slip…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit On Williamson County Ripeness And Other Takings … Stuff

2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference Banner - Credits

Registration is now open for the 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, to be held in downtown Honolulu on Thursday-Friday, January 15-16, 2015.

This is the bi-annual conference, co-chaired by U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies and land use lawyer Ben Kudo, that brings together the big names in our area of law. In other words, the one conference you don’t want to miss if you are a Hawaii land use or property lawyer, in-house counsel, a planner, an appraiser, a property owner or manager, or a law student interested in these topics. 

Download the full brochure here, or view it below. 

The keynote speaker this year is lawprof Richard Epstein, addressing “Stealth Takings: Exactions, Impact Fees and More.” Immediately following his talk, I will be moderating a panel on “Impact Fees and Exactions After Koontz,” with colleagues Bruce Voss and David Brittin. The rest…

Continue Reading Registration Open: 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, Jan. 15-16, 2015

On one hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Hutto v. South Carolina Retirement System, No. 13-1523 (Dec. 5, 2014) is old hat: the court concluded that a plaintiff alleging a federal takings claim could not bring that claim in federal court. But this case is different because it — unlike those where Williamson County ripeness is invoked to (in theory) merely delay federal court jurisdiction — resulted in a permanent bar.

The difference here is that the plaintiffs were suing the state retirement system and state officers in the their official capacities, claiming that a 2005 amendment to South Carolina’s state employee retirement system which required those who retire and then return to work to make the same contributions to state-created pension plans as pre-retirement employees but without receiving further pension benefits, was a taking. They filed their complaint in federal court, and the defendants raised the Eleventh …

Continue Reading 4th Cir: Takings Claim Against State Can’t Be Brought In Federal Court – State Immune Under The 11th Amendment

Here are all of the amici briefs in support of the property owners/petitioners in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014).

That’s the case in which the Second Circuit threw out a complaint on Williamson County ripeness grounds. Odd thing was that the court held that a procedural due process claim was not ripe under Williamson County‘s exhaustion of state remedies prong. But as we wrote here (and in our amicus brief for NFIB Small Business Legal Center), Williamson County is built on a takings-specific rationale: a federal takings claim is not ripe for federal court review until just compensation has been denied by the state (including a state court).

…
Continue Reading Amici Briefs In SCOTUS Due Process Ripeness Case – The End For Williamson County?

Check out this story from today’s Greensboro/Winston-Salem (NC) News-Record, “DOT’s long road to nowhere angers property owners” about the practice in North Carolina of using “protected corridors” to designate property under the state’s Transportation Corridor Official Map Act for future highway use, but then not condemning and paying for the land (while preventing the owners from making any use of it). 

We posted about the NC Supreme Court’s decision in one of those cases, where the court concluded that the property owners could not litigate it as a class action, but must do so in individual cases (800 of them!). Another post on the Map Act cases here (“Lines On A Map” Or Inverse Condemnation: How Long Can A Taking Be Only ‘Planned’ But Not Executed?“). 

The News-Record story is a good read, and a quick summary; recommended reading. It doesn’t hurt that the…

Continue Reading N.C.’s Map Act: Clouding Use By Condemnation On The “Long Road to Nowhere”

Here’s the audio of the recording of the ABA talk we did last week on the Starr International v. USA takings case, “Taking AIG Without Compensation: The $40 Billion Question,” now ongoing in the Court of Federal Claims. The materials and links referred to in the talk are available here. If streaming doesn’t work for you, download the mp3 here.

Related articles
Links From Today’s ABA Talk On The AIG Bailout Takings Case
Testimony to end in AIG lawsuit

Continue Reading Audio Of ABA Talk On Starr International v. United States Trial: Taking AIG Without Compensation – The $40 Billion Question

For those of you who couldn’t join us at the William & Mary Law School last month for the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (see our report here), the law school has made videos of the four panel presentations available here. 

They’re high quality videos, so be prepared for big downloads, but the presentations are worth it. While they are all good, our favorite was the impromptu discussion/debate during the third panel, “Balancing Private Property and Community Rights,” featuring panelists Kames Burling (Pacific Legal Foundation), Professors Richard Epstein (NYU), Steven Eagle (Geo. Mason), Mark Poirer (Seton Hall), and James Stern (William & Mary). 

Related articles
2014 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Report: Honoring Michael Berger

Continue Reading Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference – Panel Videos Now Available

To all who were able to join today’s ABA Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate’s Condemnation, Zoning and Land Use Committee’s call on the AIG takings trial, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, thank you for participating. I’ve posted the entire talk (minus questions) above.

Here are the links to the stories, analysis, and materials I mentioned: 

  • The original complaint, first filed in the CFC in November 2011. 
  • Second Amended Complaint in the CFC case, along with Mr. Boies’ quote that this will be “an easy case to litigate.” We described the case as “audacious,” if only because it seeks $25 billion in just compensation. 
  • Professor Gideon Kanner’s (who has been following this case more closely than we have) first thoughts on the complaint. 
  • The CFC’s Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the United States’ motion to dismiss.  

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA Talk On The AIG Bailout Takings Case

Today, on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, we filed this amicus brief in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014). The cert petition, filed on Kurtz’s behalf by the Institute for Justice, is posted here. 

That’s the case in which the Second Circuit threw out a complaint on Williamson County ripeness grounds. Odd thing was that the court held that a procedural due process claim was not ripe under Williamson County‘s exhaustion of state remedies prong. But wait, you say, Williamson County is based on a takings-specific rationale: a federal takings claim is not ripe for federal court review until just compensation has been denied by the state (inclulding a state court). That’s what our brief says, too: 

For nearly 30 years, Williamson County’s state remedies requirement has required federal courts to…

Continue Reading New Amicus Brief: Overrule Williamson County! (At Least The State Exhaustion Requirement)