Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

You remember that case we posted recently, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in which the court granted summary judgment to a property owner after the city police damaged her home in the course of the police’s apprehension of a suspect. The court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s rationale in a similar case (which concluded that these are “police power” actions, and thus never a taking).

After that ruling, the remaining issues (was the city liable under section 1983, and if so what is the just compensation owed) were tried by a jury.

On June 20, 2022, this case went to trial. Two days later, the jury returned its verdict (Dkt. #74). The jury found the City was liable under § 1983 because it acted under color of state law when it violated Baker’s constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by…

Continue Reading District Court Declines To Back Off Its “SWAT Takings” Verdict

Here’s the latest in a case and issue we’ve been following. Check out this recently-filed cert petition, involving the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage crisis in the late ‘aughts. Which allowed them to keep going, but is alleged to have iced out their private shareholders.

The Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit rejected a takings claim by the private shareholders, concluding that they don’t possess standing. Their claims are derivative, not direct, because Freddie and Fannie should be the plaintiffs.

Here’s the Question Presented:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “for-profit corporations owned by private shareholders” and “dominate the secondary mortgage market.” Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 1770, 1785 (2021). In 2008, Congress passed a statute that led to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s becoming the companies’ conservator and the U.S. Department of Treasury’s becoming a shareholder…

Continue Reading New Takings Cert Petition: Do Private Shareholders Have Standing To Assert Takings Claim After Govt Takes Over The Company?

Charlie_loser

If you understand the headline of this post, congratulations: you are officially so deep in the weeds that you deserve both a Federal Courts and a Takings merit badge. 

For those of you not in so deep, here’s the short story behind the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s short opinion in Efreom v. McKee, No. 21-1382 (Aug. 18, 2022).

This is one of those pension cases, where the state (here, Rhode Island) shored up its tottering pension system with a new statute that “altered in various ways the retirement benefits to which public employees were entitled, including by reducing the amount and availability of cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”) payments to retirees.” Slip op. at 4.

As the court noted, “[l]itigation promptly ensured in state court.” Slip op. at 5. Takings claims were included in the lineup. All of the cases were consolidated for trial. Most of the…

Continue Reading CA1: Rooker-Feldman Defeats Federal Court Takings Claim By “State Court Losers”

In Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30643 (Aug. 22, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, like a lot of other courts, reached an unsurprising conclusion: New Orleans’ restrictions on short-term rental of residential properties isn’t a taking. But there are parts of the opinion that are definitely worth your time to check out. Read on.

The city had gone back-and-forth on whether renting for less than thirty days was a good thing. Originally barring STRs, then in 2016 offering city licenses, and then when the inevitable flood of STRs resulted, retrenching and substantially revising the licensing program:

One year into the initial regime, the City commissioned a study from its Planning Commission to reevaluate the STR policies. The study found that the rapid proliferation of STRs had brought nuisances to the City. Specifically, it discovered that STRs in residential neighborhoods had lowered…

Continue Reading CA5: “But there’s a big difference between saying that something is property for purposes of procedural due process and saying that it is property for purposes of the Takings Clause”

BK 2022

There’s still space for you to join us — preferably in-person, but remotely if that is not possible for you — at the 19th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg.

The American Law Institute was kind enough to post a notice about the Conference and the ALI members who are on the speaking faculty here.

Registration for the Conference is ongoing, and you can sign up here. Here is the full agenda. (We’ll be speaking on Panel #2, “Reshaping the Framework Protecting Property Under the Roberts Court.”

In our opinion, the Conference is the best of its kind, and brings together legal scholars and the practicing bar to talk dirt law. So please come join us.Continue Reading Registration Underway – 19th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep 29-30, 2022)

You’ll definitely want to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion in Makrilov v. City of Jersey City, No. 21-1786 (Aug. 16, 2022).

Not because it reaches any earth-shattering conclusions — the opinion unsurprisingly concluded that the city’s restricting (but not eliminating) short-term rentals (less than thirty days) was not a taking — but primarily because of the interesting concurring opinion.

So here’s the story. At one time, the city thought that renting residential property for less than thirty days was a good thing, believing that short-term renting “incentivize[d] investment and development in Jersey City.” Slip op. at 3. The city even adopted an ordinance affirmatively legalizing STRs as permitted accessory uses in residential zones. A property owner didn’t even need to obtain a permit, as long as the operation was small-scale (the owner did not have more than five units it rented).

But…

Continue Reading Penn Central May Be A “Fuzzy” Test, But What Is A Court Doing Weighing The Factors?

Today’s a busy day, so we can’t lay out the details of the Texas Court of Appeals’ opinion in City of Dallas v. Trinity East Energy, LLC, No. 05-20-00550-DV (Aug. 1, 2022). But we want to post up the decision and urge you to read it because it is a rare bird: not only did the property owner win a takings claim at trial – the verdict survived appellate review.

The takings claims (Lucas and Penn Central) were based on the city’s denial of a Special Use Permit. The city argued that its denial of the SUP for the desired drilling locations did not cut off completely the owner’s ability to access the minerals, since there were other ways to get at them. Here’s what happened at trial:

The trial court found that other than the drill sites proposed in Trinity’s three SUP requests, “Trinity did not…

Continue Reading Tex App: Property Owner’s Penn Central Verdict For Drilling Permit Denial Is OK By Us

Is there a more appropriate place at which to study property rights and dirt law than William and Mary Law School? After all, it is a stone’s throw from Jamestown, the place where there’s a good argument the concept of property law and property rights first took hold in the New World. As noted by author David Price in “Love and Hate in Jamestown – John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Start of a New Nation” –

The introduction of private property for the common citizen had a salubrious effect on the owners’ sense of initiative, as John Rolfe would observe. By the end of 1619, he reported, the “ancient” (or longtime) colonists had chosen their allotments, “which giveth all great content, for now knowing their owne lande, they strive and are prepared to build houses and to cleare their grounds ready to plant, which giveth ……

Continue Reading Ye Olde Law 608: Eminent Domain & Property Rights, S5E1 @ William & Mary Law

IRWA

The International Right of Way Association‘s Real Estate Law Committee produces twice-a-year reports “which contain summaries of eminent domain decisions and legislation within the United States.”

And what is really nice is that they make the report available. 

We’re posting it here because we’re one of the co-authors. Hat tip to our co-authors Brad Kuhn, Jillian Friess Leivas, and Ajay Gajaria.

The report is short, and doesn’t contain a lot of fluff. Just what you wanted.Continue Reading IRWA’s Summary Of Major Eminent Domain Cases & Legislation (Jan-May 2022)

JQA

No, not that JQA. (Sorry for the clickbaitey headline.) But who could resist the Fifth Circuit’s per curiam opinion in John Quincy Adams v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, No. 21-60749 (July 20, 2022) which held that Mr. Adams, who owned property near a reservoir, could not sue state officials in federal court for injunctive relief for due process violations and takings.

Adams alleged that Mississippi water district officials were violating a state statute by not allowing him to exercise the option to re-acquire property that the water district had condemned decades earlier. His federal court complaint avoided directly asking for money damages because those claims would mean the state officials would have Eleventh Amendment immunity. Instead, “[t]he Adamses requested a declaratory judgment that the District’s sales and leases of property without notice were ongoing constitutional violations and asked the court to fashion whatever injunctive relief it deemed…

Continue Reading John Quincy Adams Loses A Takings Case