That may very well be the case. If so it speaks volumes about the court's priorities. Private property ownership and rights are (arguably) more important than free speech. Indeed, of far more importance than many of the cases the court hears.
I'll wager that this is an issue the court simply doesn't want to deal with. Either because the court places little value on property rights, or because it lacks the guts to confront the reality of how bad it has become. My bet goes with the former.
To All:
"Private property ownership and rights are (arguably) more important than free speech. Indeed, of far more importance than many of the cases the court hears."
Indeed, private property ownership is the sine qua non of all our freedoms... freedoms that have been eroding for some time now. If such a right is removed, then even ones very person could end up belonging to the state. Such would be no more than slavery.
Are we going to end up dreading the "knock on the door" hoping that the state is not coming to take OUR property; or are we going to understand that when rights are taken from a fellow citizen, our own freedoms are thereby diminished?