If the government enacts regulations after land is purchased that block the productive use of that land, the government has effected a regulatory taking and owes the property owner just compensation.

In 1960, Donna Murr’s parents built a small, recreational cabin on a plot along the St. Croix River in Wisconsin. A few years later, the couple bought an empty one-acre plot right next to their cabin.  

These two plots of Wisconsin land eventually became the subject of the Supreme Court case Murr v. Wisconsin—a case with a surprise happy ending. 

When her parents passed away in 2002, Donna Murr and her siblings inherited the family cabin and the empty plot next to it. They decided to sell the undeveloped plot and use the proceeds to renovate the old cabin. But after hiring an architect, the Murrs learned that a Wisconsin regulation had effectively merged their two properties into one parcel. Even though the Murrs’ parents had purchased the plots separately, and even though the two plots were surrounded by developed plots of the same size, the Murrs wouldn’t be allowed to sell their empty plot to be developed unless they also sold the family cabin next door. 

Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Murr siblings, argued Wisconsin was violating the Murrs’ constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking private property without just compensation—and by robbing the Murrs of a sellable plot, PLF argued, the state had taken their property. 

Unfortunately, in June 2017, after a 15-year legal battle, the Supreme Court announced a 5-3 decision in favor of Wisconsin. Treating the two parcels as one unit didn’t qualify as a regulatory taking of the land, Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, cautioning against “allow[ing] the government’s interests to warp the private rights that the Takings Clause is supposed to secure.” 

But that’s not where the story ends. 

Two Wisconsin legislators, Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany, were watching the Murrs’ case. After the Supreme Court made its disappointing ruling, the legislators stepped up: They introduced new legislation, the “Homeowners’ Bill of Rights,” that protects property owners from having separate, neighboring plots of land forcibly combined. It also protects the right to build on your land even if regulations change after you purchase it. The legislation passed less than six months after the Murr decision. 

Donna Murr wrote in an op-ed: 

Wisconsin is full of families like ours who own cabins and lakefront properties, and thousands of people will benefit from these changes.  But the legislation has special meaning for my family. It is the culmination of our long fight for justice and to defend my late parents’ dream of having a family cabin and gathering place for our family to enjoy for generations.