property rights

Subscribe to property rights via RSS

There’s not a lot of new territory forged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Pena v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-2422 (Nov. 4, 2025), holding that the city could not be liable for a taking after SWAT officers severely damaged a home in the course of apprehending a suspect who had taken refuge there.

After all, the other federal courts which have addressed the issue of whether a local government’s damaging or destroying a home in the course of apprehending a criminal suspect is a taking have all concluded no, although for a variety of reasons. Some say there’s no absolute right to exclude, with the issue turning on whether the police are acting pursuant to a valid warrant, incorporating by reference Fourth Amendment property law. Some say the owner has no expectations of exclusion of the government as a…

Continue Reading CA9: No Claim For A SWAT Taking Because There’s A Public Safety Exception To The Fifth Amendment

As we wrap up another year, it’s time to look ahead to the one event that always gets our eminent domain blood pumping: the annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Details, including faculty list, a complete agenda, and registration information is posted here.

Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering remains the undisputed national hub for practitioners, academics, appraisers, and anyone else who lives and breathes property rights law. Mark your calendars for January 22-24, 2026, when we’ll convene at the JW Marriott Plant Riverside District in Savannah, Georgia. Think historic charm meets Southern hospitality, with moss-draped oaks, riverfront vibes, and enough ghost tours to inspire a dozen inverse condemnation hypotheticals. (For those of you who prefer pixels to palm trees, a live webcast option is available.)

What makes this conference indispensable? For starters, it’s the place to reconnect and talk shop with the…

Continue Reading Savannah Bound: Don’t Miss The 43rd ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan. 22-24, 2026)

Check this out: a podcast from Free to Choose Media, entitled “Eminent Domain,” published a couple of months ago.

But the description reveals a time capsule:

Recorded in 2003, Dennis McCuistion, former Clinical Professor of Corporate Governance and Executive Director of the Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance at the University of Texas at Dallas speaks with professors Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), Gideon Kanner (Loyola Law School), Julie Forester (Southern Methodist University), and attorney Kenneth Wright about eminent domain.

Pre-Kelo. That alone makes it worth a listen. Highly recommended.

Continue Reading Free to Choose Podcast: “Eminent Domain”

This past week we were busy with the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.

Here’s the text of the remarks which I prepared for the session on “Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation.” Note: because of time, I truncated what I planned on saying and kept it shorter.

* * * *

Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation

Before I begin, a prelude. As you learned earlier, yesterday the student Real Estate Law Society produced a reargument of Kelo.

Ms. Kelo won this time. Six-to-zero, adopting the rationale of Justice Thomas’s dissent in the original case, with one concurring opinion. (More about this event in a separate post.)

And for those of you in the audience who didn’t know, Ms. Kelo’s famous little pink house was saved, even though her property was not. The house was taken apart board-by-board…

Continue Reading Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex: 2025 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Report

As part of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference being held next week at the William and Mary Law School, the student-run Real Estate Law Society is producing a very interesting program that offers a look back on Kelo v. City of New London, in this that case’s twentieth year.

We’re going to be rearguing the case in a Supreme Court moot, which will feature the lawyers for Susette Kelo — the Institute for Justice — rearguing her case to see if two decades of experience produces different arguments, or even a different outcome. Any guess who will be arguing the cause for the City of New London? That’s right, none other than Yours Truly (we promise not to “take a dive” and confess error on the City’s part — this is a moot court, after all!).

Serving as Moot Justices are academics, practitioners, and law students, including…

Continue Reading Kelo Reargued: Has 20 Years of Controversy Changed the Eminent Domain Debate?

This just in: in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review two cases which involve property and property rights.

First, in Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the Court will be considering these Questions Presented:

1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value?

2. Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed?

Here’s the cert petition in Pung. Note that the Court agreed to review the Excessive Fine…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Grants Two Property Rights Petitions

Be sure to check out the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (Fourteenth District) in Jones v. Port Freeport, No. 14-23-00948 (Sep. 18, 2025).

This is a challenge to the Port’s attempt to take property in an historic African-American community, with the stated purpose of the taking being “expansion of the Port Facilities” and “the development of business industries.” Slip op. at 3. The owners objected, asserting that there’s gotta be a plan. Or at least a better plan than that.

… Continue Reading Tex App: No Plan, No Public Use, No Eminent Domain: “I’m from the [Port], and I’m here [for a public use]” Is Not Enough

Check out this AP photo and the accompanying story “China’s ‘stubborn nail’ stands firm” —

Reminds me of the Warner Bros. classic “Homeless Hare,” where Bugs Bunny objects to a developer’s efforts to evict him from his hole: “Hey ya big gorilla, didn’t you ever hear about the sanctity of the American home?”

Wu Ping owns a home in Chongqing and apparently doesn’t want to get out of the way for redevelopment:

A legal battle has raged since she rejected the compensation offer as she has maintained that she cannot be forced to move out.

A local court ordered her to allow the structure to be torn down by Thursday, although she continued to refuse and it was not immediately clear what steps authorities would take next.

Property disputes are rife in China, often involving illegal land grabs by developers in collusion the government.

The national parliament…

Continue Reading ▪ The Eminent Domain “Holdout,” Graphically Illustrated

Steven Greenhut’s opinion piece at the Orange County Register, “The powerless have always been targets of eminent domain,” makes some good points about eminent domain abuse, and the recently-argued Wilkie case (regarding the right to be free from government retailition for defending a Fifth Amendment right), and is worth reading:

“Cities use code words,” explained Supervisor Chris Norby, a longtime foe of eminent domain abuse. “In the 1950s and 1960s, governments used the term ‘urban renewal,’ but critics knew that it was widely called ‘Negro removal.’ These days, we’re looking at forced gentrification,” as cities try to redevelop poorer areas into wealthy areas.

. . . .

Today’s code words and attitudes may be different than they were in the 1920s, but by giving government so much power to drive people off their land, we all are subject to the whims and rationales of officials. In the 1920s…

Continue Reading ▪ Eminent Domain Abuse and Retaliation