This post at ACSblog explains that the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous opinion in a takings case (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.) thoroughly rejects the extremist property rights view espoused by Janice Rogers Brown in a dissenting opinion she wrote in 2002 (the case was San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco). Brown’s position, basically, was that government regulation amounts to theft, at least to the extent that regulation diminishes the ability of people to use their property in any manner in which they see fit. All 9 Supreme Court Justices – Scalia and Thomas among them – rejected that view.
Please share widely!
