Justices side with government in property rights case

Justices side with government in property rights case

In a major property rights decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a decisive victory to state and local governments and environmental groups.

The Lucas decision said that the denial of all economic use of a property by a government regulation was a taking under the Fifth Amendment and required just compensation.

"I would stick with our traditional approach: State law defines the boundaries of distinct parcels of land, and those boundaries should determine the private property at issue in regulatory takings cases", Roberts said.

In oral arguments before the court in March, the family asked the government for compensation, while the government argued that it's fair to view the property as a whole and said the family is owed nothing.

Specifically, the challengers claimed that, by systematically discriminating against non-Republican voters, the Wisconsin GOP had violated the 14th Amendment's command that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The ruling "compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest".

TOTENBERG: John Groen of the Pacific Legal Foundation represented the Murrs. "It is our hope that property owners across the country will learn from our experience and not take their property rights for granted". Although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we believe our case will demonstrate the importance of taking a stand and protecting property rights through the court system when necessary.

The dispute began when four siblings from the Murr family tried to sell the vacant lot in 2004 to pay for improvements on a rustic cabin that sits on the plot next door.

Members of Murr family - who inherited the land from their parents - own two adjoining parcels along the St. Croix River, one of which contains a cabin, the other a vacant patch of land. "Often, which way they cut is in the eye of the beholder". When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000. The Murrs, in turn, brought suit, alleging that the regulation stripped their land of its value and that they were entitled to recompense. Their father had purchased the two 1.25-acre lots separately in the 1960s and both parcels had been taxed separately.

If a split court doesn't reargue the case, the lower appeals court decision remains in place. Treating the lot in question as a single parcel is legitimate for purposes of this takings inquiry, and this supports the conclusion that no regulatory taking occurred here.

Escaped inmates captured in Tenn., GBI says
Audio released from the pursuit to capture Rowe and Dubose show police and deputies responding with calm and clear reactions. But alive, which may have caught them by surprise, as earlier they told their hostages that "they'd be dead in 24 hours".

Taking all those factors into account, the Murrs "have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property", Kennedy said. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case, as it was argued before he joined the Court.

If the Supreme Court were to rule against the Wisconsin legislative districts, other maps all over the country would be open to constitutional challenges. Or, it could throw its hands up and, as it has in similar cases in the past, rule that courts have to stay out of this issue because there are no manageable standards to decide such complicated issues (which would effectively be the same as saying it's constitutional). A few years ago they were ready to sell that second lot.

The reason, he explained, is that when the government regulates land owned by private individuals, "it nearly never says that you can't do anything with all the property you own".

"There is no nuance to the ruling", he said.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: The Constitution bars the taking of private property by the government without just compensation.

Holmes made that statement in the very opinion that first established the concept of a regulatory taking.

With Friday being the 12th anniversary of the infamous decision in Kelo v.

They urged the court to overturn the lower-court ruling and throw out the claim on the grounds that redistricting is a political process, not a legal one. This means elected officials need to take positions pleasing to the party base, so they can avoid losing to an even more extreme challenger in a political primary.

Related Articles