The US Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit, and found that the Fifth Amendment does in fact require just compensation when it takes personal property, just as it does when it takes real property. While parts of the decision (concerning compensation, in particular) is 5-4, on the matter of whether a taking occurred, the Court came in with an 8-1 vote. Very interestingly, the Hornes, says Chief Justice Roberts, do not have to pay a fine and then seek compensation under the Tucker Act, but may raise a takings-based defense to the fine itself. Market value is the measure for property taken through government action.
We’ll have more on Horne once we’ve been able to read and analyze the case! In the meantime, here’s the decision if you want to read it yourself: Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
Welcome back from Memorial Day weekend!
I have been swamped with other work, and so I have not been blogging a lot. But I wanted to take a break from all that other work to alert my readers: it appears that the EPA is likely to release the Waters of the US rule this week. As many of you know, this rule will have a significant impact on land use issues anywhere water is deemed navigable. In fact, the issue of what constitutes “navigable” water and its tributaries lies at the heart of the political tensions around this rule.
From the Los Angeles Times: With EPA’s proposed clean water rule, Obama again takes an executive action to build his environmental legacy
Here’s the EPA site on the issue: Clean Water Rule
I am headed to Seattle to attend the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association this week. I am looking forward to hearing the most recent sociolegal research on property, disasters, land use planning in both rural and urban spaces, and legal mobilization. While I do that I will try to keep track of what’s happening with the EPA rule — most likely via Twitter. You can follow me there (@LJH1969).