Louisiana’s Constitution draws a bright line against using expropriation to take private property for the exclusive use and benefit of a private enterprise. [Plaquemines Port Harbor] crossed that line. Because the project can proceed through an ordinary, voluntary transaction—and because the Port seeks only to insert itself to capture private revenue—this taking is precisely the abuse the post-Kelo amendments were enacted to forbid.
December 05, 2025
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
People should not be deprived of their homes or vehicles or large sums of money without adequate notice of the confiscation, delivered in a way most likely to reach them. ... The changed world of communications warrants revisiting existing standards of adequate notice. The petition squarely presents the issue and warrants th[e Supreme] Court’s review.
November 24, 2025
Supreme Court of the United States
If the government takes away a property owner’s fundamental right to exclude, in whole or in part, it is a categorical physical taking that is contrary to the Fifth Amendment without regard to any other facts or circumstances. While the lack of available housing may be a public problem, these private property owners cannot be singled out to bear the burden of fixing it. The trial court’s decision should be affirmed.
October 17, 2025
U.S. Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District
“By granting Okello Chatrie’s petition, this Court can clear up the confusion about two issues, helping ensure uniform Fourth Amendment protection for sensitive data belonging to users of services which have become integral to our specialized, technologically advanced economy.”
August 29, 2025
Supreme Court of the United States
August 28, 2025
Supreme Court of the United States
This Court should consent to jurisdiction to resolve whether general administrative warrants may issue. By expressly overruling Price as inconsistent with modern precedent, rooting Article I, § 14 in its common-law preference for specific warrants, and prioritizing the liberty interests at their zenith in the home, [the Ohio Supreme Court] can ensure Ohioans’ constitutional protections exceed the federal floor set by Camara.
August 11, 2025
Supreme Court of Ohio
An owner’s right to be secure in his or her private property is only as safe as the government’s—most importantly the judiciary’s—fealty to what the Supreme Court describes as “settled expectations” of land title.
May 20, 2025
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
“As Colorado River itself acknowledged in an oft-quoted line, federal courts have a “virtually unflag-ging obligation” to exercise their jurisdiction.”
May 14, 2025
Supreme Court of the United States