In 2024, in what was heralded as a big win for developers in California, the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent and held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential...more
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The federal Endangered Species Act deals with a different type of “taking.”...more
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
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
3/25/2024
/ California ,
Censorship ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Government Officials ,
Lindke v Freed ,
O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier ,
Online Commentary ,
SCOTUS ,
Social Media
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162 eliminated the requirement for a plaintiff to exhaust state court remedies before pursuing a takings challenge in federal court,...more
As first reported by our good friends at inversecondemnation.com, a lawsuit has been filed in California alleging that the response by state and county agencies to the COVID-19 situation violates the state and federal...more
5/11/2020
/ Business Closures ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Due Process ,
Equal Protection ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Right to Travel ,
Shelter-In-Place ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
State Constitutions ,
Takings Clause