Latest Posts › SCOTUS

Share:

Supreme Court Holds that Legislative Impact Fee Programs Can Constitute a Taking

Today, April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must...more

Public Officials and Social Media Posts: U.S. Supreme Court Provides Guidance on First Amendment Compliance

In its recent opinions in Linke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the U.S. Supreme Court considered if and when public officials violate the First Amendment rights of members of the public by blocking them from the...more

Are Legislatively Enacted Development Impact Fees on the Chopping Block?

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in George Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, agreeing to answer the question of whether legislatively enacted development impact fees are subject to a lower level of constitutional...more

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Itself – Property Owners Can Have their Day in Federal Court

For over three decades, most property owners have been relegated to state courts when pursuing a takings claim against a state or local agency. In a 5-4 decision issued this week, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and...more

Will the Next Supreme Court Justice Reshape Environmental Law?

Yes, no, maybe so. With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, many have already started to prognosticate about the sea change that will inevitably follow. While it is certainly possible that such a sea change will come to...more

A Legal Morass: Overlapping Takings Law With the Endangered Species Act

Last week, Jeremy Jacobs posted an interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. Jun. 22, 2015), and its potential application to Endangered Species Act...more

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Take a Second Look at Takings Case

The burning question, is why? While this is not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever granted a petition for review in the same case, it is certainly not common. And, it is downright uncommon for the Supreme Court...more

A Closer Look At T-Mobile V. Roswell

On Jan. 14, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Roswell, holding that the city violated the "in writing" requirement of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds in Favor of Cell Tower Siting Applicants

On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, held that the City of Roswell ("City") violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (the "Telecommunications...more

Supreme Court Strikes Part of EPA Rule Regulating Greenhouse Gases, Affirms Balance of Rule

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA acted unlawfully when it sought to impose a permit requirement on stationary sources solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions from those sources under programs...more

The Grapes of Wrath Part II - A Return to Horne

In June of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Horne v. Department of Agriculture holding that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement...more

Rails-to-Trails Decision: Supreme Court Holds that Government Does Not Retain Reversionary Interest

The "Rails-to-Trails" program sounds like such a great idea in theory: take old, abandoned railroad right of way and turn it into public trails. Who would complain about that? Well, it turns out lots of people might...more

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Clean Air Act Suit and War of Words Ensues

On February 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear en banc a decision handed down last October by a three-judge panel, thereby leaving in place a decision that could significantly...more

On Remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Circuit Affirms Ruling that Temporary Flooding Resulted in Compensable Taking

As you may recall, last December we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that government-induced flooding of limited duration may...more

12/9/2013  /  Flooding , Remand , SCOTUS , Takings Clause

California Supreme Court Set to Hear First Post-Koontz Takings Case

As reported by our colleague Robert Thomas on inversecondemnation.com, the California Supreme Court granted the California Building Industry Association's (CBIA) petition for review in California Building Industry Association...more

The Grapes of Wrath: U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Takings Claim Can be Raised as an Affirmative Defense to Enforcement Action...

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States. Horne v....more

Supreme Court Holds Temporary Flooding Can Be A Taking

After passing on a number of Fifth Amendment issues in recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear three cases this term in which the takings clause plays a prominent role. And today, the Court addressed the...more

17 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide