(1)
FIFTH AMENDMENT

Is Private Economic Development Condemnation an Abuse of the "Despotic Power"?

Kelo v. City of New London
Docket No. 04-108

From: The Supreme Court of Connecticut

Case at a Glance

The appropriate scope of condemnation or eminent domain has always been in tension with the protection of private property. Nowhere is this more apparent than when that property is a family home and a private corporation is the most direct beneficiary of the compelled acquisition. This case asks the Court to re-evaluate how deferential it should be in applying the Fifth Amendment constitutional limitation requiring takings to be only for public use.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and by Katherine Kmiec Turner, a J.D. Candidate, 2007, at Pepperdine University School of Law.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

(2)
FIFTH AMENDMENT

When Does a State-Imposed Rent Restriction Constitute a "Taking"?

Lingle et al. v. Chevron USA Inc.
Docket No. 04-163

From: The Ninth Circuit

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has been called upon to determine whether a regulatory-taking claim can be brought under the Just Compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment for a state-imposed rent limit, and, if so, what level of scrutiny courts should employ in determining whether the challenged regulation is valid.

• Previewed by Mark A. Cohen, a Minneapolis, Minn., attorney and the editor-in-chief of Minnesota Lawyer.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Farmers in the Westlands Water District lost water when the United States Bureau of Reclamation reduced deliveries to Westlands to meet obligations imposed by the Endangered Species Act. The farmers, claiming that the Bureau breached its obligations, here seek to sue the Bureau directly as "intended" third party beneficiaries of the Bureau's contract with Westlands.

• Previewed by Robert Abrams, a professor of law at Florida A & M University College of Law in Orlando, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This ExxonMobil appeal asks the Supreme Court to re-examine the scope and purpose of the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a somewhat obscure, judicially created limitation on federal court jurisdiction. ExxonMobil is asking the Supreme Court to review whether the Third Circuit's decision to throw ExxonMobil out of federal court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a correct application of the doctrine, or an impermissible encroachment on dual federal-state concurrent jurisdiction.

• Previewed by Linda S. Mullenix, the Morris and Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Since 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act has required most businesses to be accessible to the disabled. In this case, the Court must decide whether the statute applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships.

• Previewed by Robert M. Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

John A. Pace is serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole for a murder he committed when he was 17 years old; he claims he was never told about the parole ineligibility status of his sentence. When Pace brought his claims in a state post-conviction petition the time requirements for filing state petitions was unclear, and the state court ultimately dismissed his petition as untimely. Now, the federal court has ruled that it must defer to the state court's finding.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the co-director of the Innocence Project and an associate professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision