New article on the upcoming Murr argument
While we do not yet have a date set for the oral argument before the Supreme Court in Murr v. State of Wisconsin, we now have, hot of the presses, an article by former PLF attorney (and current judicial clerk) Chris Kieser on what to expect from the Supreme Court when it does hear the case. This is the case, of course, where the Murrs are not allowed to develop or sell a lakefront lot. Normally, the lot would be developable or could be sold if it had been owned by anyone other than the Murrs. Why? Because they own a neighboring lot. In other words, the more one owns the more the government can steal. For more, read Chris’s article in the Federalist Society Review here.
learn more about
Murr v. Wisconsin
The Murr family owned two separately deeded lots that were purchased independently by their parents in the 1960s. They built a small cabin on one lot and held the other one as an investment for the future. But when the time came to sell, subsequently enacted regulations forbade the Murrs from making any productive use of the vacant lot – and without any use, it had no value they could sell. PLF represents in the Murrs in a lawsuit arguing that the regulation was an uncompensated taking because it took away all the use and value of the lot. The courts ruled against the family because they owned the adjacent lot with the cabin, and therefore hadn’t lost everything.Read more
What to read next
This past week Cato Institute, Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed amicus briefs supporting our Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Ganson v. City of Marathon regulatory takings case. … ›
California has now rescinded the state’s onerous “certificate of authenticity” requirement for the sale of autographed books. Hear directly from Bill and case attorney Anastasia Boden about the impact of this victory for freedom, common sense, and Bill’s right to be an upstanding small business owner.
One of the most fundamental rights of American citizens is the right to seek redress from illegal government action in a court of law. But the federal government has an arsenal of weapons it wields to deny or curtail this right. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the government’s attempts to stifle landowner suits challenging federal agency action under the Clean Water Act.