Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Einstein460x276No less a light than Albert Einstein is reported to have said that the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That quote has always seemed more apocryphal than accurate to us, but it’s a good definition regardless of who first uttered it.

Exhibit “A” appended to that definition might be New York City’s “emergency” housing Rent Stablization Law, adopted for the first time in 1969 and renewed eleven times since. The RSL controls how much rent the owners of rent-stablized apartments may charge their tenants (you know, to keep poor folk like Faye Dunaway in their apartments). The city’s justification for the RSL is to deal with a series of housing “emergencies” (initially, the “effects of war and the aftermath of hostilities,” and then any rise in the city’s vacancy rate above 5%), and to allow a “transition from regulation…

Continue Reading What’s That Definition Of “Insanity” Again?

The old adage is that a waterway is “navigable” for purposes of federal law if it is deep enough to float a Supreme Court opinion. Seriously, though, the less cheeky test of navigability is whether a waterway is capable of being used in its natural state as an avenue of commerce, meaning whether it was actually navigable at the time of a state’s admission into the Union. Really, that’s the test.

But as the Supreme Court reminded more than 30 years ago, when applying this general test for navigability, you must keep in mind the purpose  

T

Wednesday’s oral arguments in PPL Montana v. Montana, No. 10-218 (cert. granted June 20, 2011) started off on familiar territory with Justice Kennedy breaking the ice quickly, asking Petitioner’s counsel Paul D. Clement whether his point is “that there should be a Federal rule of — laches or estoppel, or are…

Continue Reading What Does It Mean To Be “Navigable?” – Supreme Court

Here’s the latest in the Casitas case from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Casitas Municipal Water Dist. v. United States, No 05-168L (Dec. 5, 2011). This case highlights the importance of identifying the “property” right alleged to have been taken in these type of cases:

This case is before the court following a trial held to determine the compensation, if any, owed to plaintiff under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the taking of its property. In an earlier round of litigation in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that operating restrictions on plaintiff’s water project imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service “NMFS”) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–44 (2006), should be analyzed as a physical taking where plaintiff was required to reroute a portion of the water it had diverted for its own…

Continue Reading Court Of Federal Claims: Water Rights Takings Claim Not Ripe (Flashbacks To The Hawaii Water Rights Case)

From today’s Bloomberg, a report about the two recently-filed lawsuits alleging the federal government’s takeover of AIG in 2008 was unconstitutional. One suit was filed in federal court in New York against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the other, seeking $25 billion in just compensation, was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the government itself. 

Both complaints were filed by attorney David Boies, who represented the U.S. in its Microsoft Inc. 1999 antitrust trial and Al Gore in the Florida presidential recount litigation in 2000.

“Any time David Boies is asking for $25 billion, I would say this is not a normal case,” said Robert H. Thomas of the Honolulu firm Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hasters.

“He takes cutting edge cases in unexplored areas of law,” said Thomas, who specializes in land-use and eminent domain. “It’s audacious. As someone who represents plaintiffs in…

Continue Reading Bloomberg Reports On Greenberg’s “Audacious” Takings Lawsuit

Here’s the latest from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in most regulatory takings claims against the federal government), CCA Associaties v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).

This is an appeal of a Court of Federal Claims decision holding that two federal statutes worked a taking under the three-part Penn Central test because they abrogated the rights of the owner of a Louisiana apartment building to prepay its way out of providing low income housing. The CFC held that the programs set up under the statutes in effect forced CCA to continue to provide low income housing — a public good — and that it was a taking.

The Federal Circuit reversed:

The United States appeals from the decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-242, §…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: No Regulatory Taking Under Penn Central Test

In case you missed out on the 8th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, held last month in Beijing, check out this video (here is the page with links to all of our posts related to the conference).

The Conference was a resounding success, and featured presentations and papers by the creme de la creme of the property academy and practicing bar in the U.S. and China, a truly all-star line up. Continue Reading Brigham-Kanner Conference: The Video

West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), a petition we’ve been following that asked whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land, has been denied.

California and Texas say the nexus and rough proportionality standards apply to all exactions (we don’t want the government blackmailing permit applicants, regardless of the tribute that is demanded), while Florida says they don’t. Other courts have also weighed in on one side or the other, and lacking guidance from the Supreme Court, will continue to flounder about on this issue.

We suspect the Court’s reluctance to address the confusion has less to do with the issue at hand (must all exactions be related and proportional to the predicted impact of the development) and more to do…

Continue Reading Lower Court Split On Applicablity Of Nollan/Dolan To Exactions Other Than Land Continues: West Linn Petition Denied

SCOTUSblog has designated West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), as a petition to watch for today’s conference.

That’s the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

“Petitions to watch” are those petitions which SCOTUSblog predicts have a reasonable chance of a grant (besides their own, of course). Continue Reading West Linn Case A “Petition To Watch” – Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

palazzolo

From The Day comes the sad news that Anthony Palazzolo, the namesake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), has died.

Anthony Palazzolo, whose fight to develop his property in Misquamicut made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, died Nov. 3 at the age of 91.

Palazzolo, a former auto wrecker and lifelong resident of Westerly, sued the state of Rhode Island for 17 years before ending his fight in 2005.

The case pitted environmentalists and property-rights activists from across the country. Environmental officials said Palazzolo’s plan to fill and develop his wetlands would “strangle” Winnapaug Pond, since the marsh is a habitat for fish and shellfish, and filters and cleanses waters that end up in the pond.

Read the entire story here.

My PLF colleague Jim Burling argued the case on behalf of Mr. Palazzolo. Continue Reading Anthony Palazzolo (1918-2011)

Hold the presses! In an unusual move spurred by a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed a supplemental brief in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

Earlier this week, we thought we had seen the final briefs in the case, but alas no. The petitioner’s supplemental brief discusses the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011), which held that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation. The brief argues:

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz underscores the importance…

Continue Reading Late-Breaking: Supplemental Brief In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?