Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin family in land taking case News
Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin family in land taking case

The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Friday in Murr v. Wisconsin [SCOTUSblog materials] that the lower court was correct in determining that a Wisconsin family’s property was a single unit and the government’s action did not constitute a “taking.” The Murrs, owners of two adjacent properties together totaling just under one acre, sought a variance permitting them to sell one lot and remain domiciled in the other. A city ordinance requires that two adjacent parcels be considered one when totaling under one acre, an ordinance the Murrs challenged as a regulatory taking. In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held that the state court’s analysis of the property as a single unit was correct:

Like the ultimate question whether a regulation has gone too far, the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test. … Courts must instead define the parcel in a manner that reflects reasonable expectations about the property. Courts must strive for consistency with the central purpose of the Takings Clause: to “bar Govern­ment from forcing some people alone to bear public bur­dens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” … 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.

Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case.

The court heard arguments in the case in March after granting certiorari [JURIST reports] in January 2016. JURIST Guest Columnist Brian T. Hodges of The Pacific Legal Foundation argued in February that the case could have a significant impact [JURIST op-ed] on effect on regulatory takings jurisprudence nationwide.