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.
The Murr family had planned to use the proceeds from the sale of the empty lot to pay for improvements to a cabin that sits on adjacent land. He was in the decent twice in the landmark ObamaCare cases, and even tried to bring back Chief Justice John Roberts, who both times rewrote the law to upheld it. The ruling "compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest". Kennedy's retirement would unleash nomination Armageddon, given the pivotal role he plays on the closely divided court and the feral political environment.
"This is an unfortunate decision for the Murrs, and all property owners", said John Groen, PLF's Executive Vice President and General Counsel. That outcome would essentially end the case.
The frustration to the Murrs was that someone who had owned a single lot dating to before the regulations would still be allowed to build on it. "Considering petitioners' property as a whole, the state court was correct to conclude that petitioners can not establish a compensable taking in these circumstances".
The Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations. Their father had purchased the two 1.25-acre lots separately in the 1960s and both parcels had been taxed separately. Without the ability to sell or develop the lot, it had been rendered economically useless, they said.
Kennedy said the Murrs' argument that original lot lines should always define the parcel in a takings claim was wrong, but so was the state's position that laws about merging lots should always control. He's also willing to join Thomas in pushing the envelope further than the court's other conservatives.
One of those decisions could come Monday, if the nine justices are prepared to rule on a White House challenge to lower-court findings blocking Trump's attempt to limit travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.
The Pacific Legal Foundation and Murr family were disheartened by the Court's adverse ruling.
Funeral, vigil reveal depth of sorrow at Muslim girl's death
Many outside observers are skeptical of the police's conclusion, especially Muslims who say the case looks much like a hate crime. The memorial was being held for the 16-year-old teen who was killed in an apparent hate crime while coming home during Ramadan.
The Murrs eventually chose to sell the vacant lot.
Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc).
Marcus is a columnist with The Washington Post.
"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".
"It would be very hard to get a visibly anti-'Roe' judge confirmed, even to get 50 Republican votes", Rath said.
"On the brink of having the first liberal-leaning Supreme Court in decades, the judicial left has now been banished to the wilderness for perhaps decades more", Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University, told the New York Times shortly after Trump's victory in November.
The current case in front of the Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, doesn't involve a glamorous property such as Grand Central Station, the subject of Brennan's opinion. Meaning more leeway for governments to do what Wisconsin did to the Murrs.
Comments