Law Commons^™

A New Takings Clause? The Implications Of Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid For Property Rights And Moratoria, Benjamin Alexander Mogren

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In part, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution holds that “no person . . . shall [have their] private property . . . taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a California regulation that permits union organizers to enter the property of agricultural business to talk with employees about supporting a union is unconstitutional.” The purpose of this Note is to discuss what Cedar Point Nursery means generally for the future of Takings Clause analysis and will argue that Cedar Point Nursery should be seen as a …

Evaluating Emergency Takings: Flattening The Economic Curve, Robert H. Thomas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Desperate times may breed desperate measures, but when do desperate measures undertaken as a response to an emergency trigger the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that the government provides just compensation when it takes private property for public use? The answer to that question has commonly been posed as a choice between the “police power”—a sovereign government’s power to regulate property’s use in order to further the public health, safety, and welfare—and the eminent domain power, the authority to seize private property for public use with the corresponding requirement to pay compensation. But that should not be the question. After all, emergencies …

Property's Problem With Extremes, Lynda L. Butler

Faculty Publications

Western-style property systems are ill-equipped to deal with extremes--extreme poverty, extreme wealth, extreme environmental harm. Though they can effectively handle many problems, the current systems are inherently incapable of providing the types of reform needed to address extreme situations that are straining the fabric of societies--situations that are stressing the integrity of core societal and natural systems to the breaking point. The American property system, in particular, is problematic. The system has a long tradition of strong individual rights and relies primarily on the efficiency norm to operate and shape the incentives of rights holders. The economic model that now …

Murr V. Wisconsin And The Inherent Limits Of Regulatory Takings, Lynda L. Butler

Faculty Publications

This article examines the confusion surrounding constitutional protection of property under the substantive due process and takings clauses, using Murr as a springboard for reconsidering the substantive due process/takings distinction and asking whether the regulatory takings doctrine should remain a viable constitutional concept despite its muddled principles. While powerful reasons support treating as compensable economic regulations that are functionally equivalent to physical takings, important differences between physical and regulatory takings need to be recognized as limits to the degree of equivalence possible and therefore to the regulatory takings doctrine. A look back at the evolutionary paths of substantive due process, …

Time For A Change In Eminent Domain: A “Dirt Farmer’S” Story Shows Why Just Compensation Should Include Lost Profits, Edward Walton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Real Bite: Legal Realism And Meaningful Rational Basis In Dog Law And Beyond, Ann L. Schiavone

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal, Volume 5, William & Mary Law School

Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal

Property as a Form of Governance

October 1-2, 2015

Panel 1: Property as a Form of Governance

Panel 3: Of Pipelines, Drilling, & the Use of Eminent Domain

Panel 4: Property Rights in the Digital Age

Property's Constitution, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

Long-standing disagreements over the definition of property as a matter of legal theory present a special problem in constitutional law. The Due Process and Takings Clauses establish individual rights that can be asserted only if “property” is at stake. Yet the leading cases interpreting constitutional property doctrines have never managed to articulate a coherent general view of property, and in some instances have reached opposite conclusions about its meaning. Most notably, government benefits provided in the form of individual legal entitlements are considered “property” for purposes of due process but not takings doctrines, a conflict the cases acknowledge but do …

"Property" In The Constitution: The View From The Third Amendment, Tom W. Bell

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what the term “property” means in the United States Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate—land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights—but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles, such as books, to intangibles, such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal …

Transforming Society Through Law: St. George Tucker, Women's Property Rights And An Active Republican Judiciary, Mark Douglas Mcgarvie

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Recrudescence Of Property Rights As The Foremost Principle Of Civil Liberties: The First Decade Of The Burger Court, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.