Podcasts about takings clause

Property Law Lecture 2 Ownership, Use, and Transfer of Property Introduction to Ownership and Possession Ownership and possession are fundamental concepts in property law. Ownership refers to the legal right to control, use, and dispose of property. It can be further divided into legal ownership (formal title recognized by law) and equitable ownership (beneficial interest, often arising in trusts). Possession refers to physical control or occupancy of the property. It can be actual (physical occupation) or constructive (control without physical occupation). Possession and ownership are intertwined but distinct. For example, a tenant possesses a rental property but does not own it. Courts may rely on possession as evidence of ownership, especially for lost or abandoned property. The distinction between ownership and possession is crucial in property law and legal doctrines such as adverse possession. Land Use and Zoning Land use regulations balance private property rights with public interests like environmental protection and urban planning. Zoning laws are a primary tool for regulating land use. They divide land into zones (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) with specific permitted and prohibited activities. Zoning promotes orderly development, protects property values, encourages environmental stewardship, and supports public welfare goals. However, zoning laws can also be controversial. Critics argue that they can perpetuate segregation and restrict affordable housing. Legal challenges often focus on their constitutionality, especially under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use with just compensation. The scope of "public use" has been debated, with the Supreme Court expanding it to include economic redevelopment in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). This decision sparked backlash, and many states enacted laws to limit the use of eminent domain for economic purposes. Private Land Use Controls Private agreements, such as easements, covenants, and equitable servitudes, can also control land use. Easements grant one party the right to use another's property for a specific purpose. They can be appurtenant (benefitting a specific parcel of land) or in gross (benefitting an individual or entity). Easements can be created through express agreements, implication, necessity, or prescription. Covenants are contractual agreements between property owners that restrict or mandate certain land uses. Equitable servitudes are similar to covenants but are enforced through equitable remedies. Nuisance law addresses conflicts arising from one property owner's use interfering with another's enjoyment of their property. Transfer of Property Property transfers can be voluntary (e.g., through deeds) or involuntary (e.g., through foreclosure, tax sales, or escheat). Deeds are written documents that transfer ownership of real property. Types of deeds include general warranty deeds (highest level of protection for the buyer), special warranty deeds (limited protection), and quitclaim deeds (no warranties). Involuntary transfers occur due to legal or financial circumstances, such as foreclosure (forced sale to satisfy a debt), tax sales (seizure for unpaid taxes), or escheat (transfer to the state when an owner dies without heirs or a will). Property transfers also involve contracts for sale (outlining terms of the agreement) and escrow arrangements (neutral third party holding funds and documents until conditions are met). Title searches and title insurance protect buyers by verifying ownership and protecting against title defects. Conclusion Understanding property law principles, including ownership, use, and transfer, is crucial for navigating real estate transactions and disputes. These principles balance individual rights with societal interests, shaping land use and property ownership.

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) A chicken farmer, World War II, and 150 suicidal chickens were the only ones up to the task to answer this question for the Supreme Court. No, I'm not joking. This is United States v. Causby (1946). Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 0:00 - Intro 00:40 - Case begins 3:00 - The Takings Clause 3:30 - The Causbys and their crime scene coop 7:26 - The Causbys get a (good) lawyer / Lower court case 10:00 - US Supreme Court arguments 17:41 - Supreme Court's analysis + holding 26:46 - After Causby...seriously, who owns it? / Drones are a problem y'all 37:43 - Wait, what about the Causbys? 37:52 - Reb's Rebuttal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in DeVillier v Texas. In this case, the court considered this issue: May a party sue a state directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? The case was decided on April 16, 2024. The Court did not resolve the question presented because the case's underlying premise was incorrect; the property owners adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their Takings Clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause guarantees the right to just compensation when the government takes private property for public use, but the Supreme Court has never clearly held that the Takings Clause itself creates a private cause of action for damages. However, the Court did not need to resolve this question because the case's underlying premise—that the property owner had no cause of action to seek just compensation—was incorrect. Texas state law provides an inverse-condemnation cause of action that property owners can use to bring takings claims under both the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause. The state assured the Court that it would not oppose any attempt by the property owners to amend their complaint to pursue this state-law cause of action. Therefore, since the property owners have an available avenue to seek just compensation, the Court remanded the case to allow them to pursue their Takings Clause claims through the Texas inverse-condemnation cause of action. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Sheetz v El Dorado County. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n and Dolan v City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation? The case was decided on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the California Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to permit conditions imposed by legislatures. The Takings Clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use, and this applies equally to all branches of government. Neither the text of the Constitution, the historical understanding of eminent domain (the power of the government to take private property for public use), nor the Court's own precedents support exempting legislatures from the requirements of the Nollan/Dolan test. This test, which is based on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, requires that permit conditions have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate government interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impact of the proposed development. These principles apply consistently across physical takings, regulatory takings, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, regardless of whether the condition is imposed by a legislature or an administrative agency. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, pointing out an antecedent question that was not raised in this case: whether the permit condition would be a compensable taking if imposed outside the permitting context. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion to argue that the Nollan/Dolan test cannot operate differently when an alleged taking affects a “class of properties” rather than “a particular development.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, clarifying that the Court has not previously decided—and in this case explicitly declined to decide—whether “a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

You might think taking someone's home and giving it to a multi-billion dollar corporation is the most un-American thing imaginable. Five justices of the Supreme Court disagree with you. We examine one of the most universally reviled cases in Supreme Court history--Kelo v. New London. Get Prosecutors Podcast Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/prosecutors-podcast/ Join the Gallery on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/4oHFF4agcAvBhm3o/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProsecutorsPod Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/prosecutorspod/ Check out our website for case resources: https://prosecutorspodcast.com/ Hang out with us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@prosecutorspod Day O (The Banana Court Song) Kelo come and they taking my home Day Sandra Day O Kelo come and they taking my home Thought the Court save my childhood home (Kelo come and they taking my home) Too bad team needs another dome (Kelo come and they taking my home) Hey Justice Kennedy you bulldozed my cabana (Kelo come and they taking my home) Took my life and gave it to the tax man-a (Kelo come and they taking my home) Day Sandra Day O (Kelo come and they taking my home) Day Sandra Day Sandra Day Sandra Day O (Kelo come and they taking my home) Kennedy lives in a great big mansion (Kelo come and they taking my home) He no worry bout parking lot expansion (Kelo come and they taking my home) Pfizer, Wal-Mart get free lunch! (Kelo come and they taking my home) Poor man, little man takes the punch! (Kelo come and they taking my home) Day Sandra Day O (Kelo come and they taking my home) Day Sandra Day Sandra Day Sandra Day O (Kelo come and they taking my home) Hey Justice Kennedy you bulldozed my cabana (Kelo come and they taking my home) Hey Justice Kennedy don't bulldoze my cabana Kelo come and I'll never go home

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Merck argues that the drug pricing program violates the First Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, claiming it forces them to accept government-dictated prices and infringes on their property rights. The federal government, represented by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and others, contends that Merck's arguments are unfounded and that the negotiation program is essential for reducing drug costs and ensuring the financial stability of Medicare. The case could significantly impact drug pricing, Medicare costs, and federal regulatory authority in healthcare.The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Tyler v Hennepin County. In this case, the court considered these issues: First, does taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause? Second, is the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment? The case was decided on May 25, 2023. The Supreme Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court holding that Tyler plausibly alleged that Hennepin County's actions violated the Takings Clause and thus that her claim can go forward. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property without “just compensation.” This does not prevent the government from collecting taxes, or from taking action to enforce the collection of taxes. However, the government may not, as Minnesota purported to do by statute in 1935, extinguish a property owner's interest in property when she falls behind on her property taxes. English law, from which the U.S. Constitution derives much meaning, has long proscribed the taking of more from a taxpayer than she owes. Moreover, Supreme Court precedents and Minnesota law itself, in other contexts, recognize the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, addressing the second question presented, which the majority declined to address. In Justice Gorsuch's view, Hennepin County's actions likely also violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The unanimous opinion of the Court in DeVillier v. Texas, decided April 16, 2024. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

The Supreme Court hears an appeal from a former Pennsylvania cop, who says his conduct at the Capitol on Jan. 6 does not qualify as obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Prosecutors have charged more than 300 people using that law, but are they stretching it too far? Plus, the Justices rule that a local $23,420 permitting fee is covered by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.

Property: Is the Takings Clause self-executing, such that a suit seeking compensation for the taking of property may be maintained in the absence of a legislatively created cause of action? - Argued: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 9:49:19 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.

#Bestof2021: 1/2  SCOTUS secures the Takings Clause, 6-3.  @RichardAEpstein. https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings 1930 SCOTUS

#Bestof2021: 2/2  SCOTUS secures the Takings Clause, 6-3.  @RichardAEpstein. https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings 1910 SCOTUS

The Fifth Amendment really packs a punch. Think about the Constitution like this: the body of the Constitution created the new government and the Bill of Rights immediately put constraints on that government's power. The Founders had a natural skepticism and nervousness about governmental power especially when it comes to the prosecuting of criminal activity.  The Fifth Amendment lists 5 significant restraints on government: indictments by a grand jury, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, guarantees of due process and protects private property through the Takings Clause.  Joining our all-star student panel, we are delighted to have returning fan-favorite guest Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty, to help us unpack this crucial amendment.

The NY Post told Joe's hometown about this internet sensation "Rich Men North of Richmond" (and the all want to know if Joe knows where Farmville is....) but Joe is still cautious even though he reportedly turned down $8m!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The rent control debate is gaining momentum at the top of the legal food chain. New York landlords are asking the Supreme Court to overturn lower court decisions on a 2019 rent stabilization law, and several national real estate groups are showing support. If the high court takes the case and rules in their favor, experts say it could “destabilize” rent stabilization laws across the nation.   Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. If you like our podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review.   The two landlord groups pushing for a Supreme Court review of the lower court rulings are the Community Housing Improvement Program and the Rent Stabilization Association. They are both based in New York, and claim that the 2019 “Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act” is unconstitutional. The law is also known as the Rent Stabilization Law or RSL. (1)   Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act   The landlords lost their case in federal court and the court of appeals, so they are now hoping that the conservative-leaning high court may offer a different opinion. Within the past few weeks, several major business and real estate groups threw their weight behind the plaintiffs including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Apartment Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and others. They showed their support by submitting amicus briefs, which is like saying they are friends in support of the plaintiffs who would like the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari or, in plain English, a review of the case. In other words, they want the Supreme Court to accept the case.   The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Andrew Pincus, told the National Review that the RSL is a property rights infringement. He says: “The Constitution has certain property protections, one of which is the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.” That means that the government is not allowed to take private property for public use without “just compensation.” He says that that concept is at the heart of the lawsuit. (2)   Property Rights Infringement Under the “Takings” Clause   Under the umbrella of the takings clause concept are two supporting arguments. One claims that the RSL is equal to a regulatory “taking” based on a 1978 case out of New York City. It's related to the economic impact of the law, the extent of the government interference, and the kind of government action being taken. The second argument is based on a 2021 case out of California where the court ruled that a law allowing union organizers onto private property amounted to a physical taking. Pincus compared this to a landlord's situation by saying: “They can't choose their tenants freely, nor can they reclaim their property as they wish.”   In the case of the RSL, critics say it dictates who can live on the property, how long they can live on the property, how much or how little they should pay in rent, and how much the property owners can invest to maintain the property – all of which have an impact on the financial viability of being a landlord and whether the landlord is allowed to make reasonable use of the property.   On the other side of the argument, are New York City officials and rent stabilization supporters who say the law does “not” amount to a taking because the property owners are not deprived of the economic benefits, according to certain standards known as Penn Central standards which resulted from one of the previous lawsuits I mentioned. Pincus disagrees, saying it runs contrary to the requirement of “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use.   Other RSL Issues Undermine Benefits for Needy Tenants   Critics also highlight other downsides of the law that actually hurt tenants. One is the lack of a method for determining whether tenants truly need low cost housing. Pincus says it's more of a lottery, where some lucky tenants get a great deal on rent despite the size of their paycheck. And other tenants, who might really needs a break on the rent, are sidelined.   Another is that many tenants remain in rent-controlled units long after they need financial help, which prevents low-income tenants from accessing housing they truly need. Joe Strasburg of the Rent Stabilization Association says it “gives people a huge incentive to stay in apartments no matter what.”   No word yet on whether the Supreme Court will accept the case.   You'll find links to our sources at newsforinvestors.com. You can also find out more about the real estate market and how rental properties can help you become financially independent by signing up as a RealWealth member. It's free to join, and takes just a few minutes. And don't forget to subscribe to his podcast!   Thanks for listening! Kathy Fettke   Links:   1 - https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/multifamily/national-landlord-organizations-join-chips-supreme-court-fight-against-rent-regulation-119647   2 - https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/the-case-against-new-yorks-rent-regulatory-regime/

On Thursday, May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, a landmark case addressing property rights under the Takings Clause. The case specifically focuses on the issue of "home equity theft," which refers to a practice of local governments seizing a property's entire value to settle a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, having sold the home for $40,000 and retained the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argued that the county could not take the equity in her home and asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity as an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintained that Tyler had sufficient time to pay her taxes and was not entitled to any refund.The Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It also concluded that state law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property.Join us as Tony Francois provides a detailed analysis of the decision and discusses the potential implications from this landmark ruling. Featuring: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of limited government in two cases. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the court ruling limited the reach of the Clean Water Act—and subsequently curtailed the authority of the EPA. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/supreme-court-epa-water-pollution.html 3:15pm- In Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Supreme Court ruled “that county officials violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by seizing not only back taxes owed by an elderly homeowner but also the equity she had accumulated in her condo.” You can read Ari Blaff's National Review article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minnesota-county-had-no-right-to-confiscate-elderly-womans-home-equity-supreme-court-rules/ 3:25pm- On Wednesday night, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis formally announced his candidacy for U.S. President during a live-streamed interview on Twitter Spaces alongside billionaire Elon Musk and PayPal co-founder David Sacks. Unfortunately, the announcement was plagued with technical issues—taking nearly twenty-minutes to sort out the problems before DeSantis was able to speak. Will this less-than-ideal launch have a lasting impact on his campaign? Almost certainly not. 3:40pm- According to a report from Aaron Kliegman of Fox News, “[t]he Biden administration is doling out taxpayer money through an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that has explicitly lumped the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative groups, into the same category as Nazi.” You can read Kliegman's full article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/university-program-linking-christians-republicans-nazis-granted-dhs-funds-part-anti-terror-initiative 4:05pm- Thomas Berry—research fellow in the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and editor‐​in‐​chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss two major Supreme Court decisions: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Tyler v. Hennepin County. In Tyler v. Hennepin, Berry submitted an amicus brief in support of 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler. In the case, Hennepin County, Minnesota seized Tyler's home over $15,000 in unpaid taxes. However, the condo was valued at $40,000—far more than was owed. The court ruled that Hennepin County officials violated the Fifth Amendment's “Takings Clause.” 4:25pm- While debating the debt ceiling from the House floor, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked, when was “the last time a person said…that the government does too much for them.” 4:30pm- While speaking with members of the press on Thursday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal said that Republicans and the media's reporting is to blame for a new debt ceiling not yet being successfully negotiated. 4:40pm- Speaking with Laura Ingraham on Fox News following Ron DeSantis' presidential announcement on Twitter Spaces, moderator—and former PayPal executive—David Sacks joked of the technical issues that plagued the announcement: DeSantis is so popular he “melted down Twitter's servers.” 5:05pm- The Drive at 5: Appearing on Fox News with Trey Gowdy, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vowed, if elected president, to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray. Gov. DeSantis also confirmed that he would not support putting U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine. 5:20pm- While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Jamie Harrison was asked to comment on Ron DeSantis' presidential announcement. Harrison pivoted and said of the Republican presidential nominees, “they are all bad…they are all extreme.” 5:25pm- Numerous news reports are suggesting that Amanda Gorman's inauguration poem was “banned” from Florida schools—but is moving the poem to a different section of one school's library synonymous with a ban? 5:40pm- Speaking with Trey Gowdy on Fox News, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) accused the Biden Administration of being unprepared for the end of Title 42—and subsequent illegal border crossings. 6:05pm- According to rumors, California Governor Gavin Newsom is considering appointing Oprah Winfrey to the U.S. Senate in the event Dianne Feinstein is forced to step down before 2024. 6:15pm- On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of limited government in two cases. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the court ruling limited the reach of the Clean Water Act—and subsequently curtailed the authority of the EPA. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/supreme-court-epa-water-pollution.html 6:30pm- In Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Supreme Court ruled “that county officials violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by seizing not only back taxes owed by an elderly homeowner but also the equity she had accumulated in her condo.” You can read Ari Blaff's National Review article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minnesota-county-had-no-right-to-confiscate-elderly-womans-home-equity-supreme-court-rules/ 6:45pm- According to a report from Aaron Kliegman of Fox News, “[t]he Biden administration is doling out taxpayer money through an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that has explicitly lumped the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative groups, into the same category as Nazi.” You can read Kliegman's full article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/university-program-linking-christians-republicans-nazis-granted-dhs-funds-part-anti-terror-initiative

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of limited government in two cases. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the court ruling limited the reach of the Clean Water Act—and subsequently curtailed the authority of the EPA. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/supreme-court-epa-water-pollution.html In Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Supreme Court ruled “that county officials violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by seizing not only back taxes owed by an elderly homeowner but also the equity she had accumulated in her condo.” You can read Ari Blaff's National Review article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minnesota-county-had-no-right-to-confiscate-elderly-womans-home-equity-supreme-court-rules/ On Wednesday night, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis formally announced his candidacy for U.S. President during a live-streamed interview on Twitter Spaces alongside billionaire Elon Musk and PayPal co-founder David Sacks. Unfortunately, the announcement was plagued with technical issues—taking nearly twenty-minutes to sort out the problems before DeSantis was able to speak. Will this less-than-ideal launch have a lasting impact on his campaign? Almost certainly not. According to a report from Aaron Kliegman of Fox News, “[t]he Biden administration is doling out taxpayer money through an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that has explicitly lumped the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative groups, into the same category as Nazi.” You can read Kliegman's full article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/university-program-linking-christians-republicans-nazis-granted-dhs-funds-part-anti-terror-initiative

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: Thomas Berry—research fellow in the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and editor‐​in‐​chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss two major Supreme Court decisions: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Tyler v. Hennepin County. In Tyler v. Hennepin, Berry submitted an amicus brief in support of 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler. In the case, Hennepin County, Minnesota seized Tyler's home over $15,000 in unpaid taxes. However, the condo was valued at $40,000—far more than was owed. The court ruled that Hennepin County officials violated the Fifth Amendment's “Takings Clause.” While debating the debt ceiling from the House floor, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked, when was “the last time a person said…that the government does too much for them.” While speaking with members of the press on Thursday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal said that Republicans and the media's reporting is to blame for a new debt ceiling not yet being successfully negotiated. Speaking with Laura Ingraham on Fox News following Ron DeSantis' presidential announcement on Twitter Spaces, moderator—and former PayPal executive—David Sacks joked of the technical issues that plagued the announcement: DeSantis is so popular he “melted down Twitter's servers.”

Thomas Berry—research fellow in the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and editor‐​in‐​chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss two major Supreme Court decisions: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Tyler v. Hennepin County. In Tyler v. Hennepin, Berry submitted an amicus brief in support of 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler. In the case, Hennepin County, Minnesota seized Tyler's home over $15,000 in unpaid taxes. However, the condo was valued at $40,000—far more than was owed. The court ruled that Hennepin County officials violated the Fifth Amendment's “Takings Clause.”

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: According to rumors, California Governor Gavin Newsom is considering appointing Oprah Winfrey to the U.S. Senate in the event Dianne Feinstein is forced to step down before 2024. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of limited government in two cases. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the court ruling limited the reach of the Clean Water Act—and subsequently curtailed the authority of the EPA. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/supreme-court-epa-water-pollution.html In Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Supreme Court ruled “that county officials violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by seizing not only back taxes owed by an elderly homeowner but also the equity she had accumulated in her condo.” You can read Ari Blaff's National Review article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minnesota-county-had-no-right-to-confiscate-elderly-womans-home-equity-supreme-court-rules/ According to a report from Aaron Kliegman of Fox News, “[t]he Biden administration is doling out taxpayer money through an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that has explicitly lumped the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative groups, into the same category as Nazi.” You can read Kliegman's full article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/university-program-linking-christians-republicans-nazis-granted-dhs-funds-part-anti-terror-initiative

On Wednesday, April 26th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County foreclosed on Geraldine Tyler's home to cover her delinquent property taxes, selling the home for $40,000 and keeping the $25,000 surplus as profit. Tyler argues that the county cannot take the equity in her home and has asked the Supreme Court to declare the forfeiture of her home's equity an unconstitutional taking and excessive fine. The county maintains that Tyler had time to pay her taxes and is not entitled to any refund.The Supreme Court will consider whether the county's actions violate the Takings Clause and whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than the debt plus interest, penalties, and costs is an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. After the oral argument, Christina Martin, Counsel of Record in the case for Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us to break down the proceedings.Featuring:-- Christina Martin, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- Moderator: Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel

A case in which the Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

Takings: Does taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violate the Takings Clause? - Argued: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:0:25 EDT

Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler's former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler's debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong to the former owner. But in Minnesota and a dozen other states, local governments take absolute title, extinguishing the owner's equity in exchange only for cancelling a smaller tax debt, code enforcement fine, or debt to government agencies. 1. 2. The questions presented are: Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause? Whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt plus, interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment?

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Home Equity Theft”. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Creation, Consent, and Government Power over Property Rights Hall v. Meisner, Sixth Circuit Opinion (2022) Tyler v. Hennepin County, Eighth Circuit Opinion (2021) Pacific Legal Foundation Tyler v. Hennepin County: Summary of Fact (Pacific Legal Foundation) Tyler v. Hennepin County Cert Petition FOLLOW · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack SUPPORT · PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, equity asset theft, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, takings clause, excessive fines clause, Geraldine Tyler, Tawanda hall, 6th circuit, 8th circuit, property rights, taxes, Minneapolis, Hennepin County --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The Debate of the Takings Clause. @RichardEpstein (Originally aired July 8, 2021.) #v https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The Debate of the Takings Clause. @RichardEpstein (Originally aired July 8, 2021.) #v https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

Episode 82 - 5th Amendment - The Takings Clause

File this one under the theme: what is Capitalism and what is wrong with it? Jonathan provides a lengthy history-infused explanation of nationalization (when a government takes over an industry or a particular firm within an industry).  The historical journey features  Mexico's nationalization of its petroleum industry and the US Department of State's webpage. Jonathan mentions the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution and the Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London. Eminent Domain is covered in Article 27 of the Constitution of Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. A very highly recommended book on public enterprise (including nationalization and privatization) is Our Common Wealth: The Return of Public Ownership in the United States by Thomas M. Hanna. Jonathan reads a passage about Amtrak on page 32 of Hanna's book. Also, the information about electricity municipalization in Boulder, Colorado, described at the start of the episode, was drawn from Hanna's book.My five themes to explore in this podcast's close read of Atlas Shrugged are:What is human nature?Straw-man arguments and their impact on the world Ayn Rand creates.Dagny Taggart as a true hero.How empathy can be de-legitimized.What is Capitalism and what is wrong with it? Questions or comments? Email me at: socialistreads@gmail.comLearn more about Jonathan Seyfried at their website, https://jonathanseyfried.artIf you'd like to support my creative work, please visit my Patreon page. (http://patreon.com/jonathanseyfried)The intro/outro music was composed by John Sib.The podcast theme image was created by Karina Bial Support the Show.

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor CBS Audio Network @Batchelorshow 1/2: ClassicRichardEpstein:  Fifth Amendment Takings Clause: 1/2: The constitutional trouble with suspending evictions.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst (Posted May, 2021) https://www.hoover.org/research/eviction-moratorium-bends-both-facts-and-law

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor CBS Audio Network @Batchelorshow 2/2:  ClassicRichardEpstein:  Fifth Amendment Takings Clause: 2/2: The constitutional trouble with suspending evictions.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.hoover.org/research/eviction-moratorium-bends-both-facts-and-law

Photo:  The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”              Here: 1880 cartoon about land speculation in Canada's Northwest Territories. A settler ("R.W.P." ?) moves to the Northwest Territories, only to find multiple signs telling him that there is no land available for him: "Reserved for Friends of the Governm't", "This Land Sold to Speculators", "Gov't Land Policy: Keep Off'n The Grass", "Keep Off Grass", "This Lot Not for Sale", "Go West", "This Land is Sold to an English Company", and "Parties Wishing to Secure Land in Canada, Go to Kansas". #Ukraine: The Takings Clause and the Russian Oligarchs. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/white-house-unveils-plan-to-sell-russian-oligarchs-houses-and-yachts-to-help-ukraine/ar-AAWHho8

Monday April 11, 2022 - The Governor of Minnesota, Tom Waltz, issues 3 Executive Orders imposing and modifying a moratorium on residential evictions in the state. A property owner of rental units in Minnesota objected and filed an action in District Court, contending the Executive Orders violated their rights protected under the contract clause, the takings clause, the due process clauses, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as state law. The District Court dismissed the case - on all three grounds and the property owner appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court. On April 5, a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a Minnesota state eviction moratorium likely qualifies as a taking of private property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Attorney Steven A. Leahy reviews this case for its important implications to private property rights. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/09/eighth-circuit-rules-eviction-moratoria-are-likely-to-be-takings-requiring-compensation-under-the-fifth-amendment/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/minnesota-landlord-gets-covid-eviction-moratorium-suit-revived --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/steven-leahy1/message

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Karen Bradshaw, a Professor of Law and the Mary Sigler Research Fellow at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. Bradshaw's work examines the intersection of environmental law and property law. Her most recent book, Wildlife as Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights, contends that property rights can be a useful tool in the protection of endangered wildlife. Bradshaw begins by providing a summation of the central argument of her book, and explaining how the conclusions she comes to are, in fact, a continuation of trends that have been gaining legitimacy in both property rights law and trusts and estates law. She also describes how many of the ideas discussed in the book were well-established in non-Western legal systems and property regimes, such as those of many pre-colonial indigenous communities. This would constitute an expansion of the original understanding of environmental law as it was conceived in the 1970s (:55 – 10:04). The conversation then focuses on what steps the United States government, which owns nearly a third of the country's land area, could take to ensure that wildlife interests are adequately protected against future land takings. Bradshaw describes the process through which the status quo could be changed, so that property can, in fact, be owned by animals and managed on their behalf. Bradshaw argues that the understanding of who (or what) has a right to own property is in constant evolution, and much of the publicly-owned land in the United States is already being managed for the benefit of animals. This part of the discussion incorporates a variety of legal concepts, including conservation easements and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (10:13 – 30:14). This leads to questions about how the legal system would define ownership, and what sorts of natural entities would be entitled to ownership rights. Bradshaw claims that the example offered by approaches to animal rights within the context of the high seas — areas of the ocean outside national boundaries — might be indicative of the path to take within national boundaries. Bradshaw also talks about her own experience with this issue, as she is in the process of titling her own property to incorporate the animals that live on it (30:20 – 37:12). Using her firsthand experience as a reference point, Bradshaw compares the animal-ownership regime with more traditional means of protecting land for wildlife, such as donation to a conservation trust, emphasizing the importance of a move away from anthropocentric understandings of land ownership. This leads to a more in-depth discussion of the legal responsibilities and practical realities of managing animal-owned land (37:40 – 55:40). The conversation concludes with a broad discussion about how we approach animals generally, touching on such ideas as whether blue jays have an easement to the trees in someone's backyard and the extent to which prairie dogs are able to speak, rather than simply communicate, with one another (55:50 – 1:06:53). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, the federal and state governments must pay “just compensation” for taking private property for public use. Sam Spiegelman discusses Ideker Farms v. United States. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One provision of the Fifth Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Another provision, the Double Jeopardy Clause, provides the right of defendants to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The self-incrimination clause provides various protections against self-incrimination, including the right of an individual to not serve as a witness in a criminal case in which they are the defendant. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term often used to invoke the self-incrimination clause when witnesses decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them. In the 1966 case of Miranda v Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination clause requires the police to issue a Miranda warning to criminal suspects interrogated while under police custody. The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation." Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to state governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause contains a prohibition against vague laws and an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Text. The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Photo: Scales of justice. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The Debate of the Takings Clause. @RichardEpstein (Originally aired July 8, 2021.) https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

Photo:  Text from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." While the Fifth Amendment by itself only applies to actions by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Takings Clause to actions by state and local government as well. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The Debate of the Takings Clause. @RichardEpstein (Originally aired July 8, 2021.) https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

The government took your land, now what? In this episode, we dive into a case about eminent domain, the Takings Clause, property rights, and court access. Where does religious liberty play a part? It turns out that the property rights of religious groups are especially vulnerable.

Photo: The Bill of Rights in the National Archives              Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:  “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”   @Batchelorshow 1/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The New Deal and the Takings Clause. .@RichardAEpstein @HooverInst #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety https://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide

Photo: The U.S. Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States.  Justice William Strong called the authority of the federal government to appropriate property for public uses “essential to its independent existence and perpetuity.”   Here:  William Strong (judge). Library of Congress description: "Strong, Judge (U.S. Supreme Court)". @Batchelorshow 2/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: The New Deal and the Takings Clause. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety https://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide

In this episode, 2019-2020 postgraduate Buswell Research Fellow Lindsey Whitlow hosts recent William & Mary Law School graduates Alex Pratt and Andrew Parslow. The discussion begins with a brief history of the discipline of urban planning before diving into just some of the complexities of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Our researchers explore how smart city plans may come into conflict with the Takings Clause, and how some technologies that may benefit the smart city could also run into problems with existing laws and regulations. For resources and additional information found in this episode, click here for a PDF: https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-11---additional-resources.pdf The views and opinions expressed in this interview are the personal views of the speakers, and do not represent the official position of William & Mary Law School or any other affiliated institutions.

Take it!!  This week's episode covers Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that allowed access to union organizers on private property.  Brett and Nazim discuss the implications of the 6-3 ideological split, but also shellfish and roller coasters.  Law starts at (07:30).

Hey everyone! Once again, I'm joined by Jordin Dickerson (@Jordin_Aterria), professor at UNCP in PoliSci, holder of a history and law degree, and current public defender, and we're talking about the "Takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment and some important cases that have shaped the US in the last 20 years or so. While not TOO old as far as history goes, it's still vitally important. I hope you enjoy the episode!

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court exteriors. Statue of Contemplation of Law at U.S. Supreme Court,    1/2  SCOTUS secures the Takings Clause, 6-3.  @RichardAEpstein   https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

Photo:  U.S. Supreme Court, woman in foreground 2/2  SCOTUS secures the Takings Clause, 6-3.  @RichardAEpstein SCOTUS secures the Takings Clause, 6-3.   https://www.hoover.org/research/bombshell-decision-property-takings

It is becoming increasingly obvious that our education system across the country is doing a very poor job of teaching our children the knowledge required for Americans to collectively maintain our independence and our systems of American society. In fact, it has done such a poor job for so long, most adults do not have a good, functional understanding of our system of government under our US Constitution. They do not know America's basic history, not even basic general concepts and definitely not in the context of time or centuries. This lack of critical knowledge makes it very hard to find good leaders for our elected offices. As our third President, Thomas Jefferson, said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”Have you noticed as soon as Democrats get something they have been demanding to have for a long time, they suddenly move on to something else to gripe about that is making them very unhappy? They act like spoiled, self-centered children who never learned how to share or to compromise. Well, they wanted Juneteenth to become a National holiday, and as soon as they got it, they started griping about people with white skin getting that Federal Holiday, too. That definitely is a self-centered, racist attitude, and it won't help anyone get along……but do they want to?Our American Mamas, Teri Netterville and Denise Arthur, discuss the conflict between the reality of who George Floyd was and how he has been promoted by the media and the socialist Democrats. They warn parents to teach their children how to avoid the mistakes Floyd made. But an unanswered question remains why are they expecting everyone to be impressed with a statue of George Floyd when they have been so hateful about other statutes around the Nation, including George Washington,Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, the 9-11 Firefighters, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary.No one ever called the politics of New York State “honest and ethical” — not now and not throughout most of American history. [The Tammany Hall society, founded in 1786, “became the main local political machine of the Democratic Party” until the mid-1960's — which is just about all of American history, when you look at it closely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall ] And while it may now have a different name, it is still engaging in using political power to attack those who oppose its ruthless control. This time, and apparently without appropriate, legal “due process”, the New York Bar just stripped Rudy Giuliani of his New York State Law License — because he represents Donald Trump. Time will tell if Giuliani can get that overturned through the courts.Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens in New York City, and is the 4th most powerful Democrat in the US House of Representatives. He declared the Democrats to be a collection of honest, hard-working people trying to investigate the January 6 Capitol Building incident, and attacked the Republicans as being part of a “full-blown cult” with unquestionable allegiance to Donald Trump! He went on to say, “They have chosen to place Party over patriotism. They have chosen the big lie over the rule of law. They've chosen autocracy over democracy.” [REMEMBER: The Democrat Party is the party of projection — so turn it around and reverse the words “Democrat” and “Republican” and you will have something closer to the truth.]Being committed to being the Nation's “Green Energy Leader” and thus no longer allowing gasoline or diesel vehicles into the state after 2035, California has just admitted it cannot supply enough electricity to meet the state's current needs right now! A DO NOT CHARGE YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLES order just went into effect!California does some really weird stuff, even when it isn't fair to its residents, this one because of Cesar Chavez! For over 45 years and in honoring had forced agriculture land owners to allow labor unions to come onto their property for up to three hours a day, 120 days per year, to try to organize their temporary, migrant workers without any financial compensation paid to the land owners. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and thus prohibited. Justice Roberts referred to this as the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment, and he further stated property owners have an inherent “right to exclude” as a fundamental aspect of American property rights which cannot be taken away by any government.

The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause.

I'm joined by Erin Murphy and Amy Swearer to discuss our Second Amendment rights and the current attacks on our rights. Do so-called gun control regulations have a greater impact on a woman's right to self-defense? Erin Murphy is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Her practice focuses on Supreme Court, appellate, and constitutional litigation. She has argued before both the Supreme Court and most of the federal courts of appeals on a wide variety of issues, including the scope of the First Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Federal Power Act, the Appointments Clause, and the National Labor Relations Act. Erin has also argued several appeals defending Second Amendment rights, including the appeal that produced the opinion the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Erin has been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s “Outstanding Women Lawyers” and a “Rising Star” and has been ranked by Chambers & Partners as one of the nation’s top appellate lawyers. Amy Swearer is a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. MENTIONED: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opin...​ ---------- Follow Gayle Trotter-- WEBSITE: https://gayletrotter.com​ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/gayletrotter​ PARLER: @gayletrotter FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/gayle.s.trotter​ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/gayle_trotter/​ SOUNDCLOUD: https://soundcloud.com/gayle-trotter​ Support: https://www.patreon.com/gayletrotter​ You can also listen to The Gayle Trotter Show on Spotify, iHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Google Play, TuneIn, Stitcher and other podcast platforms.

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court will decide whether a California "Access Regulation" violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Access Regulation allows union organizers to enter the private property of agricultural employers in the state for three hours per day, 120 days per year, for the purposes of soliciting employees to join the union.Petitioners Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, Inc., are California agricultural employers subject to the Access Regulation. In 2015, union organizers came onto the property of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry plant harvester near the Oregon border. The same year, union organizers filed an unfair labor practices charge against Fowler Packing, a citrus and table grape grower, alleging that Fowler denied access to union organizers seeking to enter their property. Petitioners contend that the Access Regulation constitutes a per se taking by appropriating an easement for the benefit of third party union organizers. Petitioners add that, because there is no mechanism for providing just compensation to Petitioners, the Access Regulation violates the Takings Clause.Respondents are members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. They argue that per se taking analysis is inappropriate because of time, place, and manner limitations contained in the Access Regulation. They urge the Court to analyze the Access Regulation under the multi-factor balancing test invoked in cases involving regulatory takings.In 1979, a divided California Supreme Court rejected a takings claim brought by other California growers shortly after the Access Regulation went into effect. Petitioners in this case brought this case in federal court. A divided Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision rejecting Petitioners' Fifth Amendment claim, and Petitioners' petition for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court accepted the case in November 2020, and heard oral arguments on March 22, 2021.Featuring: - Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On today’s pod, Sarah and David give us an update on the goings on at the Supreme Court, with an in-depth look at a union takings case out West. “A California regulation allows union representatives to meet with farm workers at their work sites for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year,” Sarah explains. “And so the question is: Is this a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment?” After Sarah and David discuss oral arguments for the case, they do a deep dive on a 9th Circuit Second Amendment case, Twitter’s lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case on the ministerial exception. They wrap things up with some much needed Netflix recommendations and a conversation about D.C. statehood.   Show Notes: -Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid and Supreme Court oral arguments. -New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett and Holloway v. Garland. -Twitter, Inc. v. Ken Paxton. -Deweese-Boyd v. Gordon College. -Torres v. Madrid. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court will decide whether a California “Access Regulation” violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Access Regulation allows union organizers to enter the private property of agricultural employers in the state for three hours per day, 120 days per year, for the purposes of soliciting employees to join the union. Petitioners Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, Inc., are California agricultural employers subject to the Access Regulation. In 2015, union organizers came onto the property of Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry plant harvester near the Oregon border. The same year, union organizers filed an unfair labor practices charge against Fowler Packing, a citrus and table grape grower, alleging that Fowler denied access to union organizers seeking to enter their property. Petitioners contend that the Access Regulation constitutes a per se taking by appropriating an easement for the benefit of third party union organizers. Petitioners add that, because there is no mechanism for providing just compensation to Petitioners, the Access Regulation violates the Takings Clause.Respondents are members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. They argue that per se taking analysis is inappropriate because of time, place, and manner limitations contained in the Access Regulation. They urge the Court to analyze the Access Regulation under the multi-factor balancing test invoked in cases involving regulatory takings.In 1979, a divided California Supreme Court rejected a takings claim brought by other California growers shortly after the Access Regulation went into effect. Petitioners in this case brought this case in federal court. A divided Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment claim, and Petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court accepted the case in November 2020, and will hear oral arguments on March 22, 2021.Featuring:-- Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

This week's amazingly-titled episode discusses the case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which asks whether a California law that grants labor organizers access to private property violates the Fifth Amendment.  The law kinda starts at (11:00), but actually starts at (13:40), which is indicative of the legal focus in this episode.

Growing our cities bigger and getting into some other game mechanics: transportation, zone layouts, rewards. Also: the Takings Clause, the Laffer Curve, and the urban planning of Canberra. And at the end, announcing our next game!

Numerous businesses around the country have been shuttered by state government shutdown orders adopted to try to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Some have filed lawsuits claiming that such forced closures are takings requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the other side, state governments contend that no compensation is due, because the shutdowns are exercises of state police power to protect public health broadly. This teleforum will consider the extent to which takings claims against coronavirus shutdown orders have any validity.Featuring: -- Prof. F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Instructor of Accounting, University of Central Florida College of Business-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School-- Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

Numerous businesses around the country have been shuttered by state government shutdown orders adopted to try to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Some have filed lawsuits claiming that such forced closures are takings requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the other side, state governments contend that no compensation is due, because the shutdowns are exercises of state police power to protect public health broadly. This teleforum will consider the extent to which takings claims against coronavirus shutdown orders have any validity.Featuring: -- Prof. F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Instructor of Accounting, University of Central Florida College of Business-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School-- Moderator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides compensation when the government takes your property. But not always. There is also a summary about oral arguments from last week’s DACA case.Music Cred: www.bensounds.com

A case in which the Court held that a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time; the state-litigation requirement set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is overruled.

Over the last few years, taxi companies in several cities have brought lawsuits claiming that legalizing ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because it expropriates their supposed property right to a monopoly of the taxi business. Courts have so far rejected these arguments. But they raise broader issues about the nature of property rights, and what kinds of government actions qualify as a taking. Confusion about these matters goes well beyond this specific set of cases. Could treating government-created monopoly privileges as property rights imperil valuable innovations and reforms in many parts of the economy?Featuring: Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Over the last few years, taxi companies in several cities have brought lawsuits claiming that legalizing ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because it expropriates their supposed property right to a monopoly of the taxi business. Courts have so far rejected these arguments. But they raise broader issues about the nature of property rights, and what kinds of government actions qualify as a taking. Confusion about these matters goes well beyond this specific set of cases. Could treating government-created monopoly privileges as property rights imperil valuable innovations and reforms in many parts of the economy?Featuring: Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Between 2011 and 2012, appellant Minnesota Sands acquired the rights to several leases with landholders in respondent Winona County to mine silica sand to be processed and used in hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas (“fracking”). Minnesota Sands did not immediately apply for a conditional use permit, but another company did in 2012 and the application was approved. In 2016, the County amended its zoning ordinance to change the treatment of sand mining. The amended ordinance imposes a county-wide ban on operations involving “industrial minerals,” but operations involving “construction minerals” remain a conditional use. The definition of “industrial minerals” specifically refers to “silica sand . . . used in industrial applications, but excludes construction minerals,” and the amendment’s definition of “silica sand” refers to sand used for fracking. The definition of “construction minerals” includes “gravel and sand that is produced and used for local construction purposes. . . .” Minnesota Sands sued the County, alleging that the amended ordinance violates the Takings Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions and the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Minnesota Sands’ claims. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed. On the Commerce Clause issue, the court of appeals reasoned that the ordinance did not favor in-state interests over out-of-state interests, and because Minnesota Sands had no interest in mining construction minerals, it had no standing to challenge the use of the word “local” in the ordinance’s definition of construction minerals. On the Takings Clause issue, the court of appeals concluded that Minnesota Sands had no right to mine under the leases because it failed to fulfill a condition precedent of the leases and/or apply for a conditional use permit. Because Minnesota Sands had no right to mine, the court of appeals concluded that it had no compensable property interest and therefore no taking occurred. On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the County’s ordinance violates the Commerce Clause, and (2) whether the County has “taken” mineral rights belonging to Minnesota Sands and thus owes compensation under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. (Winona County)

Today's deep-dive Tuesday takes us back to a time in which politically-motivated revenge was actually seen as a scandal; namely, Chris Christie's Bridgegate.  There's a new ruling out of the Third Circuit that affects two Christie staffers, and... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Then, it's time to take a long look at ongoing litigation surrounding the Trump Administration's efforts to deter Democrats from registering for the Census, thus reducing their voting power.  What does a trial in district court have to do with the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari? After that, we answer a terrific Patron listener question regarding the European loser-pays-legal fees model versus the American pay-your-own-way model.  Yes, the American model seems counter-intuitive at best (and downright regressive at worst), but is shifting to a loser-pays model the answer?  Andrew talks about his experiences and the guys go through a bunch of options. And finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #103 on the Takings Clause!  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman show talking court-packing and more.  Give it a listen!  And, as always, if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links You can read the 3rd Circuit's opinion in Bridgegate by clicking here. Click here to read the Court's order in the Census litigation, which shows that Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch would have granted a stay. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today, Jay and Luke talk about the second half of the Fifth Amendment, which means digging into the right against self-incrimination, the guarantee of due process of law, and finally the Takings Clause. 

This week's episode discusses Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, which on its face deals with the correct forum for Takings Clause cases, but on the sly is probably the best fact pattern we've dealt with so far on the podcast.  The law starts in earnest at (10:06), but this episode generally covers Weird Al, realizing the law is boring, how young Nazim looks, bail bonds, and being a real estate lawyer.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, the US Army Corps of Engineers deliberately flooded thousands of homes and businesses because they believed it was necessary in order to prevent even worse flooding elsewhere. Many of the affected property owners have filed lawsuits claiming that this deliberate flooding qualifies as a taking that requires the government to pay "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The outcome of these cases may well set important precedents for the future and Professor Richard Epstein will join us to discuss them. Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, the US Army Corps of Engineers deliberately flooded thousands of homes and businesses because they believed it was necessary in order to prevent even worse flooding elsewhere. Many of the affected property owners have filed lawsuits claiming that this deliberate flooding qualifies as a taking that requires the government to pay "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The outcome of these cases may well set important precedents for the future and Professor Richard Epstein will join us to discuss them. Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

To build a wall, Trump is going to need to seize private land. The Constitution has something to say about that and it's known as the Takings Clause.

To build a wall, Trump is going to need to seize private land. The Constitution has something to say about that and it’s known as the Takings Clause.

PLF's Creative Director Brian Feulner joins client and turkey farmer Willie Benedetti and PLF attorney Jeremy Talcott from Benedetti's Ranch in Marin County to discuss how the County’s new forced-farming mandate denies building permits to landowners in the coastal agricultural zone UNLESS they agree to personally engage in farming or ranching. PLF’s lawsuit challenges the coercive requirement as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, because it unconstitutionally deprives Willie of his liberty to engage in the career of his choosing. The requirement is also challenged under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, because it amounts to an unreasonable dictate with no tie to any public need created by any development project application.

What does the Murr v. Wisconsin "Reasonable Expectations" test mean for United States property owners? This and more on today's show. Show discussing news, politics and culture from the perspective of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Hosted by Amy Peikoff. Check out Program Notes on my blog (usually posted about an hour before showtime) for links to all the stories, etc., I plan to discuss.

On March 20 the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case it agreed to take up in January 2016. We don’t know why the Court waited almost 14 months to schedule the case for argument and did not wait an additional month — when Judge Gorsuch might be on the Court — but better now than never. Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment. Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has “taken” the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the “relevant parcel” of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the government. Another amicus brief, filed by Nevada and eight other states and co-authored by Ilya Somin, argues that the Wisconsin court’s rule “creates significant perverse incentives for both landowners and regulators.” Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important cases of this Supreme Court term on the eve of argument. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation and John Echeverria of Vermont Law School discuss the issues in a big case about the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Tom Donnelly for hosting this week.

PLF Director of Communications Harold Johnson is joined by PLF Atlantic Center Managing Attorney Mark Miller to discuss PLF's latest litigation for our signature cause; the defense of everyone's property rights. The City of Marathon has robbed a family of constitutional property rights, and deprived family members of a legacy from their late parents, by designating their nine-acre island as a bird preserve, or “rookery,” prohibiting the family from building a home or anything else on the vacant property. The city is violating the Constitution by refusing to pay the family a meaningful form of “just compensation,” as the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause demands when government seizes private property or prohibits any economically beneficial use of it.

This week's episode covers the contentious topic of eminent domain, which is the when the government is permitted to use or take your Property.  Brett and Nazim cover how that is done directly as seen in Kelo v. City of New London, and indirectly by way of the Takings Clause as seen in the upcoming case Murr v. Wisconsin.  The Law starts at (5:00), and Brett shares his world famous pasta sauce recipe at (15:00).

Bankruptcy and the Takings Clause – Implications for Puerto Rico - Episode 181 by ABI

A case in which the Court held the Takings Clause must be evaluated under the capacity in which the Government fines, and the citizens do not need to file a Takings Clause challenge in the Court of Federal Claims.

Mike & Jay kick off the episode by discussing a bunch of topics related to the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling of two weeks ago, including President Biden's latest executive order, state constitutions and reproductive rights, Mike's novel interpretation of the Takings Clause, Trey & Ken as proponents of a “living Constitution”, and a lot more.Next, they turn to the Court's decision in West Virginia v EPA, a case in which Jay wrote one of the amicus briefs before the Court. They end up agreeing that the Court got it right on the merits, but Mike thinks the dissenters were right that the case didn't present a live controversy for the Court to hear in the first place.After that it's another Supreme Court case – Biden v. Texas, concerning the Biden administration's attempt to end the Trump administration's “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers. While both Jay and Mike have sympathy for Justice Alito's dissent (at least in part), they believe that the Court got it right and that the Biden administration can legally end the Trump-era program.Following that is Mike's brief interview with Jenna Spinelle, the host of a great new podcast on citizen initiatives called When The People Decide, more general thoughts on the Supreme Court's latest term, and a look at the latest work of the January 6th Committee.When The People DecideThe McCourtney Institute for DemocracyThe Politics Guys on Facebook | TwitterListener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. You can support us or change your level of support at patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support. On Venmo, we're @PoliticsGuys.Interested in starting your own podcast? Check out RedCircle, home of The Politics Guys.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy