The Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority in decisions that restricted local governments’ ability to use their police powers to protect property as they cope with the homelessness crisis.
The Supreme Court should not allow lower courts to set new obstacles to property owners’ claims so soon after Knick cleared the Williamson County roadblock away.
When a government regulation forces a property owner to sacrifice all economic use for the public good, without compensation, it violates the Takings Clause. Even if this sacrifice is only temporary.
This brief won’t tell you what a “sophistic, Miltonian Serbonian Bog” is, but it does tell the Texas Supreme Court their justification of takings via the police power is unconstitutional.
The government cannot revoke core liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, like the right to demand a warrant, simply by regulating an activity or use of property.
Legislative demands that property owners give up constitutional rights for a development permit should be subject to certain requirements to ensure fair compensation and prevent excessive burdens, which is important for affordable housing and protecting individual rights.
The Fifth Amendment’s Takings clause is self-executing and applies to the states. Victims of government-caused flooding need not file statutory civil rights claims, and their just compensation is not blocked by sovereign immunity.
One remedy for the perennial problem of civil forfeiture? A prompt post-deprivation hearing for innocent owners to reclaim their cars and the freedom their cars enable.
Colorado courts have been correct to deny the standing of a single activist to recategorize a riverbed on someone’s private property as public trust open to fly fishing.