In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Did the Supreme Court Hand the CFPB a Pyrrhic Victory?
Early Returns Law and Politics with Jan Baran: A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
Proceso constituyente en Colombia Parte II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Use of Unfairness to Regulate Discriminatory Conduct: A Discussion of the Consumer and Industry Perspectives
John Neiman on the Corporate Transparency Act
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in CFSA v CFPB: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Understanding the SCOTUS Shadow Docket | Steve Vladeck | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: CFSA v. CFPB Moves to the U.S. Supreme Court - A Look at Constitutional Challenges to the CFPB’s Funding, with Special Guest GianCarlo Canaparo
Fifth Circuit Rules that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is Unconstitutionally Funded: What Does the Decision Mean? A Deep Dive with Special Guest Isaac Boltansky, BTIG
Initial Reactions to the Fifth Circuit CFSA Decision - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Recent Tenth Circuit Decision in John Q Hammons Fall Following SCOTUS’ Decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald Could Result in Significant Refunds for Certain Chapter 11 Debtors
The Constitutionality of Increased Trustee Fees In Bankruptcy
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
As threatened, TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd., the owner of the TikTok app, filed suit against the United States on May 7, 2024, alleging that the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and… dodge. An interesting case from the United States Supreme Court yesterday. Interesting because of what it says, and interesting because of what it very explicitly declined to say....more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings...more
The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2024, that the "Takings Clause" enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies equally to legislative and administratively imposed land use permitting fees. Since...more
The U.S. Supreme Court last week unanimously held that the Takings Clause of the Constitution prevents legislatures, as well as administrative agencies, from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits....more
On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1074: This case involves the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” set forth in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n,...more
Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more
In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, when George Sheetz sought a building permit to construct a single-family residence, the County of El Dorado agreed to issue the permit with one important condition: he had to pay...more
With essential unanimity, though with an array of concurrences in one of them, the Supreme Court ruled against government parties in three cases, two of them in favor of homeowners, and in property rights and environmental...more
Like virtually every other governmental entity in the world, in March 2020 the City of Columbus, Mississippi, enacted strict lockdown measures affecting private business and public places of worship in an effort to slow the...more
Earlier this summer, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to buy plaintiff, Valancourt Books, LLC’s, claims that the Copyright Office of the United States unconstitutionally demanded books for free, when Judge...more
The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from depriving an owner of private property for public use without “just compensation.” Governmental action burdening private property does not always...more
Like music, real estate isn’t just one thing. It’s a combination of many rights. This article discusses the bundle of rights that comprise real estate, how the United States Supreme Court’s June 23, 2021 ruling Cedar Point...more