Here's an article by University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein on the awful Didden v. Port Chester case which the Supreme Court declined to hear last year. Here's the brief that Pacific Legal Foundation filed in that case. Excerpt:
[O]ur Supreme Court remains on a constitutional holiday. Over and over the justices blithely assume that conscientious planners acting in good faith are entitled to ample discretion in allocating the costs and benefits of our social life. Sounds great on paper, but the sorry saga of Port Chester shows that when it comes to real estate, we have a government not of laws but of politicians. In matters that they really care about, like race and free speech, judges are quite capable of seeing through airy abstractions to harsh realities. Why can't they do the same for property rights?
More here by Prof. Ilya Somin.