Options for Supreme Court on Trump travel ban

Share

During these interviews, Justice Ginsburg was highly critical of the then-candidate Donald Trump, calling him, among other things, a "faker" and casting a very negative light on the possibility of him becoming president.

In terms of a replacement, Kennedy might take comfort in the list of 20 judges Trump has vowed to draw from when considering the next vacancy on the court.

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on the travel ban.

The Murrs wanted to sell the lot to finance an upgrade to the cottage their parents built 56 years ago, and argued that St. Croix County has essentially taken their land through strict shoreline development and conservation rules and should pay just compensation for that loss under the Fifth Amendment. They hoped to sell the empty lot to finance a renovation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joining the court's liberal members in Friday's opinion, called the government's action "a reasonable land-use regulation" meant to preserve the St. Croix River and surrounding land.

In a petition filed in August 2015, the Murrs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the "parcel as a whole" concept from its landmark 1978 decision in Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. City of NY means that two legally distinct but commonly owned land parcels must be combined for the purposes of a takings analysis. More than 100 US cities and counties have similar restrictions that treat two adjacent properties as one if they have the same owner.

So after the Murrs transferred the lots to their four children in the 1990s, the younger Murrs were denied permission to build on the second lot.

The regulation prevented the sale because the adjacent lot didn't meet size requirements. But government officials - imposing regulations enacted after both parcels were purchased - have forbidden them from selling or making any productive use of the vacant investment parcel.

More news: Danny Ainge was 'mad' at Josh Jackson canceling workout

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against four siblings who contended zoning regulations constituted a taking of their Wisconsin vacation property. And he quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in a 1922 opinion declared that "government could hardly go on if to some extent" property values "could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law".

Given the test laid out in the ruling, Kennedy said, the Murrs' property "should be evaluated as a single parcel".

Specifically, the definition of "just compensation" was at play. He also attacking the court's standard for determining the relevant parcel of land.

TOTENBERG: John Groen of the Pacific Legal Foundation represented the Murrs. "We are disappointed that the court did not recognize the fundamental unfairness to the Murrs of having their separate properties combined, simply to avoid the protection of the Takings Clause". State of Wisconsin and St. Croix County, with the majority failing to recognize the constitutional violation that government imposed on the Murr family. The rules were created to prevent too much development along the St. Croix River.

Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group.

Share with Us - We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.

Be proactive - Use the "Flag as Inappropriate" link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Share