Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

GPElXhCWkAA3bWK

Here’s the abstract:

Employment at will is legally and politically entrenched. It is the default termination law in forty-nine states and controls the working lives of most U.S. workers, creating a political economy of precarity and exploitation. In light of these challenges, this Essay offers a novel framework for a constitutional challenge to the at-will termination regime under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

The argument advanced in this Essay is that at-will rules strip workers’ job security and are, thus, unconstitutional takings of workers’ property. Following the Supreme Court’s lead, numerous courts equate public-sector workers’ job security with property entitlements in their jobs under the Due Process Clause. I offer theories to expand this doctrine from the public sector to the private sector, and from the Due Process Clause to the Takings Clause. As a sword, takings claims can be raised against the prevailing termination regimes in forty-nine states. As…

Continue Reading New Article: “At Will [Employment] as Taking,” 133 Yale L.J. 2165 (2024)

IMG_20170323_143119 (Medium)

Readers know that from time-to-time, we like to cover the going’s on in the courts of our neighbors to the north. See here and here, for example. Although property rights are not a constitutional principle in Canada (the people did not include property as a fundamental constitutional right when the Constitution was amended last), there’s a lot for U.S. lawyers to learn from the way Canada law treats those from whom the government must expropriate property (either directly, or in what they call “de facto” or constructive takings (i.e., regulatory takings and inverse condemnation). In some ways, their system treats property owners slightly better than our constitutional system.

Well, here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

In St. John’s (City) v. Lynch, 2024 SCC 17 (May 10, 2024), the Supreme Court held that compensation in a de facto taking is calculated by excluding…

Continue Reading La Cour suprême du Canada: In Constructive Takings, Compensation Calculated Without Reference To “The Scheme”

Screenshot 2024-05-09 at 22-29-04 Professor Lee Fennell to Receive Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize

Lawprof Lee Anne Fennell, whose work makes frequent appearances here (see here, here, and here for example), has been selected as this year’s recipient of William and Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize. See this announcement for details.

“Lee Fennell is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking scholars writing about property law in the United States today,” said James Y. Stern, Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School and Director of William & Mary’s Property Rights Project. “Her work examining property’s conceptual and social boundaries has almost literally helped to reshape thinking about property law, and the Brigham-Kanner Prize is a fitting tribute to her many contributions.”

Save the date: the Prize will be awarded as part of the 21st Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, to be held at the law school in Williamsburg, Virginia, September 12-13, 2024. That’s a bit…

Continue Reading Lawprof Lee Fennell To Be Awarded 2024 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize

Check out Texas State Library and Archives Comm’n v. Westmoreland, No. 03-22-00276 (Mar. 22, 2024), where the Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) rejected a claims of a putative owner of a letter that the State of Texas asserting that it owns the letter would be a taking.

Westmoreland possesses a historic letter, and offered it to the Commission for sale. Instead of negotiating, the Commission claimed that the letter is a “state record” that had at some point in the past been purloined from the State. We’re not going to buy from you what is already ours!

The Commission sued. Westmoreland brought counterclaims, including, inter alia, for a taking because “the Commission has clouded his ownership of the Letter by filing the present lawsuit[.]” Slip op. at 5. The commission’s lawsuit challenges Westmoreland’s ownership, and does not raise takings concerns:

[T]he Commission, through its lawsuit, seeks a…

Continue Reading Tex App: A Fight Over Who Owns A Historic Letter Isn’t A Takings Problem

Check out the North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in North Carolina Bar and Tavern Ass’n v. Cooper, No. COA22-725 (Apr. 16, 2024).

We’re not going to go into great detail, mostly because this one tracks the most common judicial approach to takings challenges to business shut-down orders during the Co-19 period. The court concluded that the State’s selective shut down of certain bars but not others was neither an “emergency commandeering” under North Carolina’s emergency response statute, not a physical, Lucas, or Penn Central taking. Read the opinion for the reasons why.

But there is more than one way to skin that cat. The court held that the trial court should not have rejected the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its North Carolina’s Fruits of Labor Clause claim.

That provision states:

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed…

Continue Reading Blinded Me With Science! No Taking For Selective Co-19 Business Shut-Down, But Might Violate North Carolina’s Fruits Of Labor Clause

PXL_20240422_045016733.MP
There are some rewards for working late in the 808

Yesterday was the last day of instruction for the Spring 2024 semester at the University of Hawaii Law School. Did these last few months ever go by fast. 

A big thank you to Professor Mark M. Murakami, with whom I guest-lectured at the Old School (both of us earned our JD’s at the Law School) over the semester, on such topics as Euclid, vested rights and development agreements, and of course limitations on the police power such as takings.

Although our students have another couple of weeks to finish up with their final papers, we can say with certainty that the future of Hawaii land use law is in good hands. We had some very intriguing and educational discussions over the past few months. 

PXL_20230426_222214630

Law of the Splintered Paddle

PXL_20240423_050055849.MP       
Old School chalkboards remain in some of the classrooms. …

Continue Reading Aloha To Another Semester Of U. Hawaii Land Use

Here’s the latest, a cert petition where the property owners are represented by Michael Berger.  

We’re not going to be saying too much here, because a Berger cert petition certainly doesn’t need any furter explication by us. And, our firm is going to be filing an amicus brief, urging the Court to take up this case (so this is going to be one of our cases, too).

Here are the Questions Presented:

Petitioners’ predecessors sold an easement to the United States in order to preserve the land’s environmental character and to permit members of the public to use the easement as a trail. The property was unimproved and the grantors expected it to remain that way. When the property owners learned that the government intended to build a paved road instead, they sued. The trial court held that they waited too long and granted summary judgment to the…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Tolling Statutes Of Limitations; Are Equitable Remedies Available For Takings?

Screenshot 2024-04-24 at 10-12-17 VICTORY Breaking Down the Supreme Court Ruling on Permit Fees

Be sure to join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Brian Hodges and Larry Salzman, and Paul Beard (arguing counsel) and Chance Weldon (Texas Public Policy Foundation) tomorrow, Thursday, April 25, 2024, at 4pm ET for a free webinar on Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that all permit conditions are subject to the nexus and proportionality tests of Nollan and Dolan.

Here’s the description:

Pacific Legal Foundation just won its 18th Supreme Court victory! Join us for a virtual discussion to learn more about the case, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, and how it helps secure property rights (and lower housing costs) for everyone. 

When George Sheetz wanted to build a modest manufactured home on the property he bought in El Dorado Country, California, the government told him he was going to have to pay a “traffic impact fee” of more than

…
Continue Reading “Breaking Down the Supreme Court Ruling on Permit Fees” (Thursday, Apr. 25, 2024, 4pm ET/1pm PT)

As we noted here (“SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: “Important and pressing question” (Just Not In This Case)“), a small silver lining in the Court declining review was the statement of Justice Thomas accompanying the denial, where he noted the issue is an “important question,” and set out a rough roadmap to future challenges.

Here’s a cert petition which asserts this is the case to take up the issue. Here’s the Question Presented:

New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 transforms a temporary rent- regulation system into a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate, without just compensation, in the name of “affordable housing.” Among other things, the Act prohibits owners—even of small and midsized apartment buildings like Petitioners—from reclaiming rental units for their own personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto right over condo/co-op conversions. As Justice…

Continue Reading We Heard You, Justice Thomas: NY Property Owners File New Takings Cert Petition Challenging Rent Control

Gorsuch concurring

Note: this is the second of our posts on the recent Supreme Court opinions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the case in which the unanimous Court held that exactions imposed by legislation are not exempt from the essential nexus (Nollan) and rough proportionality (Dolan) standards. Here’s our first post, which covers the case and the main opinion (“Sheetz pt. I – ‘Radical Agreement’ At SCOTUS: ‘Your Money Or Your Rights’ Isn’t OK Just Because A Legislature Does It“).

[Disclosure: this case is one of ours.]

In this post, we cover the three very short concurring opinions.

* * * *

The Court took no position on whether the County’s traffic impact fee has an essential nexus to the Sheetz development, or whether $23 grand is roughly proportional to any traffic his proposal might be responsible for. For this and more…

Continue Reading Sheetz pt. II: The Concurrences – Does Nollan/Dolan Operate Differently When Exaction Affects A Class?