Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

[Chosen Daughter]

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Chief Justice Roberts: “Today’s decision knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation.”

Eric Boehm|Jun. 23, 2017 2:45 pm


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."


- And additional excerpt:

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.


http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

What a disappointment.  Gorsuch did not participate.  And it is no wonder.  Trump is an advocate for seizing private property.

There apparently is a big fight brewing with Texas ranchers who stand to loose their property for the wall.

[Smokin Joe]

It isn't just losing property, it is losing access to water. In the West, if you control access to water, you control the land. That simple. If the cattle can't drink from the river, you can't raise them. Putting a pump on the other side to pump water to stock tanks is a non starter (pump? What pump?), and how do you service it?
Irrigation is out.
Besides, the border goes down the river, not on the land.