There is no public necessity exception to the Takings Clause and the Ninth Circuit was wrong to hold that there can be no compensable taking when police intentionally destroy a person’s business in pursuit of a fugitive.
May 08, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
There is no police-power exception to the Takings Clause, and the Seventh Circuit was wrong to hold that there can be no compensable taking of private property when police intentionally destroy a person’s home.
May 08, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
In any other context, such speech would warrant full First Amendment protection. But when this speech comes clothed in the superficial trappings of an advertisement, the Central Hudson test instructs courts to dilute the First Amendment’s strength. ... The Supreme Court should grant the petition to reconsider this anomaly in First Amendment doctrine.
May 04, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
This Court should affirm the district court's judgment holding Peninsula Township liable for violating the wineries' constitutional rights.
April 24, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Business owners have a First Amendment right to speak on their businesses’ social media accounts about matters of public concern without fear of government retaliation.
April 13, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Idaho
The Washington Supreme Court should review to reaffirm that agencies may not regulate through informal, binding directives.
April 10, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
The government has to pay you fairly for taking your land. Our whole conception of private property stands atop that premise. This case tests whether that promise is worth any more than the paper it’s written on.
April 09, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The long tradition of having juries determine just compensation cannot be casually tossed aside by concluding that a trial judge deciding whether the government’s actions had “damaged” property is also deciding whether the owner’s residue property has been damaged.
April 07, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Virginia
If the challenged executive orders in the four underlying cases were allowed to stand, the precedent would jeopardize the ability of amici, and any other litigant, to seek redress in the courts from unlawful government infringement on individual rights. Such an outcome cannot be abided.
April 02, 2026
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit