New LibertyBrief – Regulatory takings and Murr v. Wisconsin
As many of you may be aware, we are just one week away from oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin. Murr is the latest in a long line of property rights cases litigated by Pacific Legal Foundation all the way to the highest court in America. Todd Gaziano and I recently co-authored a new PLF LibertyBrief that places Murr in the larger context of constitutional protections of property rights and explains its significance.
The LibertyBrief is focused on Regulatory Takings, an area of property law that has resulted in several of PLF’s Supreme Court Victories. Under Supreme Court precedent, when government “goes too far” in regulating away use or value of property, they are required to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. There are several tests that courts apply when evaluating regulatory takings, with two categorical or “per se” tests, and a more convoluted ad hoc, multi-factor inquiry that was established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York.
The method used to define a property right can determine which regulatory takings test a court will apply. In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Wisconsin appellate court lumped together two contiguous though independent legal parcels owned by a group of adult siblings, the Murrs. The court then applied the Penn Central multi-factor inquiry to the two parcels together. Because this diluted the perceived impact of the regulation, the court denied the Murrs compensation.
PLF and the Murrs believe that the independent legally-created parcel should be the presumptive unit of property when courts undertake a regulatory takings analysis. This makes sense for property owners like the Murrs, who purchased two separate lots at different times and for different purposes. This also squares with traditional state property law. After all, Wisconsin legally created the two separate lots under state law, and has taxed the Murrs on those lots as if they are independent parcels for over 50 years. Next Monday, March 20, PLF attorney John Groen will ask the Supreme Court to reaffirm the constitutional protections of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. A victory will ensure that similarly situated property owners nationwide will receive just compensation when government regulation of a single parcel “goes too far.”
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.