Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights
Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm

Posted on 06/23/2017 2:20:20 PM PDT by Sopater

When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don't necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment's Takings Clause.

"Put simply, today's decision knocks the definition of 'private property' loose from its foundation on stable state law rules," Roberts wrote. The ruling "compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest."

Donna Murr, in a statement provided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian law firm that represented the family in the case, said her family was disappointed by the result.

"It is our hope that property owners across the country will learn from our experience and not take their property rights for granted," Murr said. "Although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we believe our case will demonstrate the importance of taking a stand and protecting property rights through the court system when necessary."

In 2004, Murr and her siblings sought to sell one of two parcels of land that had been in the family for decades. Murr's parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment.

The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots.

Those regulations effectively gutted the value of the Murrs' property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.

The Murrs filed a lawsuit against the state and county, arguing that they should be compensated for the lost value of the property, arguing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees governments must compensate property owners when land is seized or otherwise made un-useful for public purposes.

To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. This meant that even though the two pieces of land were separate and the Murr family paid taxes on them separately, the family would be unable to make a takings claim for one of the two parcels.

In short, they could sell both lots together, but not one or the other.

Lower courts agreed with the government interpretation and the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the court rulings.

"Treating the lot in question as a single parcel is legitimate for purposes of this takings inquiry, and this supports the conclusion that no regulatory taking occurred here," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "They have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion, while conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent. The Supreme Court's newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not participate in the case.

The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin.

Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs' ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands.

Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn't have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states.

Writing Friday at The Washington Post about the ruling, Somin said it is "likely to create confusion and uncertainty going forward."

"In at least some cases, today's indeed ruling allows the government to avoid compensating property owners for the taking of their land, merely because they also own the lot next door," he writes. "But the vague nature of the test established by the Court makes it very hard to figure out exactly when that might happen."

With Friday being the 12th anniversary of the infamous decision in Kelo v. New London (in which the Supreme Court upheld an objectionable use of eminent domain), Somin jokes that maybe property rights advocates should hope the court doesn't release any more rulings on June 23.

Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, stressed that the court's ruling in Murr could allow for "ad hoc, case-specific consideration" of takings claims, thus undermining constitutional protections that should be consistent and predictable for property owners. Meaning more leeway for governments to do what Wisconsin did to the Murrs.

"The result is that the government's goals shape the playing field," Roberts wrote, "even before the contest over whether the challenged regulation goes 'too far' even gets underway."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 5thamendment; johnroberts; lawsuit; propertyrights; ruling; scotus; scotuspropertyrights; takingsclause
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion, while conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent. The Supreme Court's newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not participate in the case.

Even if Gorsuch had been there, it couldn't have changed anything.

This is a disappointing day for those of us who cherish liberty.
1 posted on 06/23/2017 2:20:20 PM PDT by Sopater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Please, Kennedy..retire


2 posted on 06/23/2017 2:23:07 PM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Sopater

“The Noblest Triumph” is a great book on property rights and how all other rights and prosperity hinge on property rights:

https://www.amazon.com/Noblest-Triumph-Property-Prosperity-Through/dp/0312223374


4 posted on 06/23/2017 2:28:25 PM PDT by rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Why not join the two parcels and have it valuated (with improvements) as a single lot?


5 posted on 06/23/2017 2:28:56 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (HTTP 500 - Internal Server Error)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Kennedy and Ginsberg will be retired by God’s will soon. Justice will have to wait for that good day.


6 posted on 06/23/2017 2:31:05 PM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Comrade, why do you resist? All your property belong to the state.

(and yes, Please retire comrade Kennedy)


7 posted on 06/23/2017 2:31:11 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I agree. What a travesty of justice.

Nice to see Roberts pulled his head out on this one. I guess the full house on the other side did give him a chance to seem reasoned though.


8 posted on 06/23/2017 2:31:38 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Fourth estate? Ha! Our media has become the KCOTUS, the Kangaroo Court of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Bigly.

Pray for a true change on SCOTUS. This disaster goes along with the New London decision as a travesty for private property rights.

Think, though, if DJT can appoint and replace just TWO of these foul liberals...Breyer and Ginsburg especially... today’s unconstitutional wind can be reversed.


9 posted on 06/23/2017 2:33:11 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

So disappointed in Kennedy. He usually takes the libertarian view, but went with Big Brother today.


10 posted on 06/23/2017 2:33:48 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
"But the vague nature of the test established by the Court makes it very hard to figure out exactly when that might happen."(emphasis mine).....or if ever.
11 posted on 06/23/2017 2:35:33 PM PDT by yoe (Keep focused Freepers andspeak out for POTUS ... investigate Maxine Waters, Ilijah Cummings, Nancy P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

Because the idea was to sell the undeveloped lot to fix up the other lot, not sell both of them.


12 posted on 06/23/2017 2:36:32 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I loathe leftists.


13 posted on 06/23/2017 2:36:41 PM PDT by KyCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I don’t trust any branch of government any more.


14 posted on 06/23/2017 2:37:17 PM PDT by djpg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it.”

How could that be when the regulatory taking occurred in the 1980s? Did their appraiser not know about it?


15 posted on 06/23/2017 2:38:05 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy”

The usual suspects.


16 posted on 06/23/2017 2:39:15 PM PDT by SharpRightTurn (Chuck Schumer--giving pond scum everywhere a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Well, well, well. What a surprise out of John “Obamacare” Roberts.


17 posted on 06/23/2017 2:41:07 PM PDT by Governor Dinwiddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion”

All the usual suspects.


18 posted on 06/23/2017 2:41:24 PM PDT by rightwingcrazy (rightwingcrazy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henchster
not hug, rode out of Town on a fresh split, wooden splintery wooden rail.Dang! Those splinters get in the darnedest places,
19 posted on 06/23/2017 2:43:27 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

There is your problem - what valuation of land or even a house is valid? Better not sell it to the county it might create a tent city for Somalian refugees on it.


20 posted on 06/23/2017 2:43:35 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Check out "CHAOS AND MAYHEM" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson