SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.
The 5-to-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.
Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Property Owners to Go Directly to Federal Court Over Local Regulations
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 22 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There's no such thing as an original sin.
-- Elvis Costello
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday June 24 2019, @07:16AM (3 children)
I RTFA.
The main complaint from the four dissenters seems to be that this decision requires payment in advance whenever the government exercises eminent domain.
It's an interesting change, and will likely change the dynamics of fighting a seizure. Can they still seize it if you reject the payment?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @07:52AM (1 child)
I believe that they did so when the railroads were built, and again, when the interstates were built. I suppose that a court might uphold seizure of the property, if a fair price were offered. A price of pennies on the dollar might be rejected, but a fair price probably upheld. That, of course, presumes that eminent domain were valid in the case. Seizing land for a developer's personal gain certainly doesn't qualify.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:15AM
> Seizing land for a developer's personal gain certainly doesn't qualify.
You know that Trump did this (or tried to) to some low income housing that happened to be where he wanted to build high end stuff.
Just one of the many reasons that I've disliked Trump for many years (long before he started into politics).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @03:28PM
Why would that change? They didn't make eminent domain illegal after all.