When courts assess the public benefits of punishment at a high level of generality, combined with judicial deference to legislatively-imposed penalties, the result is that government could justify virtually any fine... [I]ndividual circumstances can result in a generally “fair” fine becoming excessive punishment, far beyond the scope of individual wrongdoing.
September 10, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
The First Amendment rights in this case are important and worthy of protection; that protection need not and should not come at the expense of property rights.
September 04, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
The county clerk’s typographical error caused the error in recording and indexing that underlie this lawsuit. Manhattan Palms, as the innocent purchaser, should not be forced to bear the cost of that error.
September 03, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Florida
Just compensation disperses the costs of public projects and ensuring reimbursement of costs prevents one or a few owners from paying more than their fair share. Consequently, while federal courts may have set a floor for what must be considered in just compensation calculations, they have not set a ceiling, and North Carolina can and should demand better.
September 02, 2026
North Carolina Court of Appeals
The Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses’ original public meaning conflicts with current Supreme Court doctrine interpreting them. This dissonance has broad negative impacts on property owners, local governments, and the liberty that the enumerated powers are meant to protect.
August 20, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
History, tradition, state law, and the Supreme Court’s precedent point the same way. The Hoffmanns spent three years litigating to secure the compensation the Constitution promises. Under North Dakota law, the condemnor pays for that fight. Only the sovereign’s immunity could excuse WBI Energy from paying, and WBI is not the sovereign.
August 20, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
Here the government violated the Takings Clause when it took Mr. Fulton’s horses for public use without paying him just compensation. But the government refuses to honor its constitutional obligation to justly compensate Mr. Fulton and argues that the Takings Clause itself offers no remedy, despite its plain language. The Court should reject that argument.
August 17, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
In restricting the economic use of Mindale Farms’ property down to zero for the public’s benefit, Tallmadge’s regulatory action resembles a classic taking. In other words, keeping private land open, rural, and green for the public’s enjoyment is an objective Ohio pursues through parkland acquisition—that is, through compensated takings.
August 07, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The right to lease, at whatever term, is a subset of the right of alienation of property and therefore a fundamental property right under the Constitution.
July 09, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit