Property Rights

A Legal Overview of Utah's H.B. 148

Federalist Society White Paper
Donald J. Kochan January 14, 2013

A Legal Overview of Utah's H.B. 148Recent legislation passed in the State of Utah has demanded that the federal government extinguish title to certain public lands that the federal government currently holds.  The State of Utah claims that the federal government made promises to it (at statehood when the federal government obtained the lands) that the federal ownership would be of limited duration and that the bulk of those lands would be timely disposed of by the federal government into private ownership or otherwise returned to the State.  This White Paper provides a legal overview of these claims....[Read Now!]

Address by Mark Levin - Event Audio/Video

Mark R. Levin, Leonard A. Leo November 20, 2009
Mark Levin, President of the Legal Landmark Foundation and author of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, closed the 2009 National Lawyers Convention with this address on Saturday, November 14, 2009. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States: A Temporary Fix for Temporary Takings

Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
July 01, 2013

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States: A Temporary Fix for Temporary TakingsThe United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States is a rare unanimous victory for property rights. The decision is significant because the Court recognized that any government action that interferes with the enjoyment and use of private property can give rise to a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment.  There is no exception for government actions that are temporary in duration.  The Court’s decision closed a long-standing loophole in takings law that had allowed the federal government, as it did in this case, to avoid takings liability for having repeatedly flooded the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission’s land.  The decision promises to be important for all property owners because the Court relied on principles that reaffirm the protective nature of the Takings Clause....[Read More!] 

Arkansas Game and Fish: Property Rights in the Supreme Court - Podcast

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
Steven J. Eagle, Dean A. Reuter November 14, 2012

Arkansas Game and Fish: Property Rights in the Supreme CourtIn early October, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arkansas Game and Fish v. United States. Can the temporary flooding of private property, caused by release of water from a river-regulating dam to relieve pressure on the dam or to aid in downstream water management, be a taking of private property for public use which therefore requires just compensation? This novel question was addressed in the oral argument, and will be answered by the Court when it renders its opinion. Professor Steven Eagle attended the oral argument and gave his report in this special “Courthouse Steps” edition of Teleforum.


  • Prof. Steven J. Eagle, George Mason University School of Law
  • Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

California 2010: The Courts and the Economy

White Paper on the California Supreme Court
Jeremy B. Rosen, Thomas F. Gede October 13, 2010
California 2010: The Courts and the EconomyWith Chief Justice George’s imminent retirement and replacement by California Court of Appeal Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and the high likelihood that the Governor who is elected this November may have the ability to appoint a majority of the court during his or her term in office, this is a unique opportunity to consider the work, impact, and role of the California Supreme Court. In this paper, we highlight a few important areas of law (consumer class actions, property rights, arbitration, commercial speech, and employment) where the court has been strongly divided in recent years. In those areas of great importance to California’s businesses, workers and consumers, changes in the court’s personnel therefore could result in changes in the law that push the court away from its current balance.