Rulings are coming down. In the case of the raisin growers who refused to turn their raisins over to the government, the Supreme Court ruled against the government and for the growers. From the decision: The first question presented asks “Whether the government’s ‘categorical duty’ under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it ‘physically takes possession of an interest in property,’ Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511, 518 (2012), applies only to real property and not to personal property.” The answer is no. They hold that seizing your car is no different than taking your land, and requires just compensation, while citing the Magna Carta, which specifically prohibited the seizure of produce. The second question presented asks “Whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government’s discretion.” The answer is no. A promise to pay you a little bit from a government account, sometime later, isn't acceptable. The third question presented asks “Whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a ‘condition’ on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking.” The answer, at least in this case, is yes. The 'yes' affirms that a mandate to give up some of your produce (whether raisins or laptops) as a condition to engage in a business is 'a taking' that requires fair compensation. More decisions are coming down, so here's a thread for them until the really major cases like King v Burwell or same sex marriage spawn their own.
I wonder how this effects drug related seizures? I. e. If you get busted for selling drugs, can the government seize your car, cash, etc.?
In Patel v Los Angeles the court struck down a law requiring hotel owners to allow the police to inspect their records whenever the police wanted to. The court held that it constitutes a search, and thus the law was a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Read the opinion and dissent on the raisins case. While usually I'm finding that the arguments are full of logical holes on both sides, it seems the opinion is much more solid than usual, though I think the dissent in part III by Breyer is not completely unreasonable. Sotomayor's dissent is completely batshit, however. It reads like she thinks she's poking a balloon with a pin, but it's really more like poking holes in a rubber ball with one. I have no doubt Liet will love it and proclaim it to be absolutely correct.
Lower courts did. Indeed. You can tell she was an affirmative action hire, and her position is revolting, holding that the government hasn't stripped you of rights unless it has stripped you of all your rights. She really says that: "Because the Order does not deprive the Hornes of all of their property rights, it does not effect a per se taking." [em. mine]
Eh, You're an idiot. I'm entirely with Breyer on this one. The majority opinion in part III is quite ridiculous. It is a declaration that people have a Constitutional right based on the takings clause to freeload off of federal programs, to steal the benefits without paying any of the costs that other participants pay. It is, of course, antithetical to the rule of law in that it's a principle that has been and will continue to be routinely rejected in most cases because to fail to reject it in most cases is to invalidate the very concept of government. What Bush v. Gore did explicitly--disclaim any usability as precedent in future cases--this case does implicitly. I'm also fairly sure that you're deliberately misreading Sotomayor's argument and only seeing what you expect to see rather than what's actually there.
Freeload off the federal program that takes half your produce, physically? Could they just go to Dell and demand that half of all laptop production has to go to the government to keep laptop prices from falling?
Then there's the King v Burwell case, but no one seems interested in that anymore. Probably more interested in the Spiderman decision...
Nope, and not even the dissent holds otherwise--it holds that the searches in question were reasonable and allowed under the Fourth Amendment. The arguments on behalf of Los Angeles appear to have conceded the point that the records in question were hotel records subject to the Fourth Amendment rather than City records collected and stored by the hotels.
I haven't given it any thought, so I'd say between 0 and 10, with 10 being unlikely because I haven't given it any thought. The question I have about the LA v Patel case is why would LA have written such a law? Is it so the cops could keep city officials up to date on who their favorite stars were sleeping with or something?
BTW, here's the opinion in the Marvel case. Held: That as the copyright holder, Marvel Enterprises has a claim to renumeration from the earnings of Mr. Peter P. Spiderman when he's conducting lawful but officially unsanctioned law enforcement activities, despite the private nature of those activities. Wait, that might be the wrong case.
Looks pretty solid, although the "closely regulated industries" test is laughable at this point, as the first dissent points out. The second dissent is simply wrong, and PP v. Casey should have been enough for Alito and Thomas.
Marvel had a contract to pay a patent-holder 3% royalties on the sales of a Spiderman toy. The toy patent expired, but the contract didn't specify any end date for paying royalties on sales. The court ruled that royalties could not be enforced on sales made after the patent expired, essentially because the patent holder never had any rights to sell regarding those sales in the first place. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
Ohhh...thought maybe it was the thing with Stan Lee suing over not getting enough royalties for his creations.
The raisin case was mixed as neither side got what they wanted. They said some compensation had to be paid but that the cost of promotional activities could be deducted from that compensation making it far less than fair market value.
Yes. Several states and cities required hotel owners to maintain a guest registry and to make it available upon request of law enforcement as a condition to having a hotel business permit.
I don't think you read the ruling. The court ruled for the farmers who refused to participate in the reserve.
Well, there's this: IOW, "Keep your Gubmint hands off my Gubmint entitlement, but cut off everyone else's!" And: Will he now be suing for hearing loss? IOW, "I gots mine; fuck everyone else!" No doubt he's also for Smaller Gubmint...except for the millions this case is costing the taxpayer...
You are just wrong, as usual. It said the government CAN compel raisin farmers to give up part of their crop but that they must pay some compensation. The government can deduct the cost of advertising support from the compensation so that the compensation can be less than fair market value but they must pay something. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...isin-farmers-fight-against-government-n379886 Given that raisin farmers themselves set how much of the crop gets taken and sold to pay for industry promotion efforts not much is going to change. It has been this way for 70 years and now they just have to keep a closer accounting. Compliance is still manditory. The wing nut sought a court order freeing him from having to comply with federal law. He didn't get that.
You didn't read your link did you. By contrast, Monday's ruling in the raisin case was seen as a decisive win for property-rights advocates seeking to limit government power. It means the government has to pay fair market value. To take the couple's raisins, the feds have to outbid Krogers and Walmart, which means they have to get in line like every other customer, and they have to pay up front, like every other customer.
Fair market value minus collective advertising costs. Also you claimed the government couldn't compel raisin growers to contribute to industry promotion. You are wrong on both counts. The farmers collectively vote on what percentage of their crop they have to turn over, that percentage is sold and the money raised pays for the collective advertising (remember the California raisins?). This is legally binding on every single Farmer in the country which produces raisins. This fucktard wanted to free load, he didn't want to pay anything towards collective industry promotion, that is a violation of 70 year old federal law. The court ruled that he indeed did have to abide by the law and that his perticipation was manditory but instead of getting nothing for the percentage (usually 10% but sometimes as high as 17% if the farmers vote to go that high) the government had to pay fair market value MINUS advertising costs to promote the entire industry. That is what they are already doing so he is going to get jack cheese and is still liable for all the fees and penalties he racked up when he was breaking the law. You can call that a win, I guess, but he lost all the main points and will probably now have to declare bankruptcy. That is why I called it a mixed ruling.
