[T]he government’s eviction ban was a categorical taking of the Appellant owners’ right to exclude. Their fundamental property rights were stripped away by government decree and they were prohibited from excluding the tenants that, but for the moratorium, could have been excluded by law and by lease. ... The government’s failure to provide just compensation for the rights that it took is a clear Fifth Amendment violation.
October 28, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The involvement of private investors [in Iowa tax law] does not shield the system from the Constitution’s demands. The Takings Clause still applies.
October 01, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Iowa
The Code tells the Treasurer how to sell tax liens. The Constitution tells every officer of government what must accompany a taking: pay just compensation. The two do not conflict, because the Code is silent on compensation, and silence is not a command to withhold it.
September 25, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
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