Episode # 85
Support The Institute For Justice – https://ij.org/support/give-now/devillier
In Devillier v. Texas, the Supreme Court delivers a property rights hat trick. Following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Tyler v. Hennepin County and Sheetz v County Of El Dorado, Devillier v. Texas is now the third landmark takings clause precedent in a row to side with property rights over sovereign immunity and the “compelling government interest” argument.
This is both notable and commendable— Especially considering this takings clause trifecta has consisted of three unanimous opinions, despite the fact that for decades, takings clause cases have traditionally split the Justices along the ideological right/left divide.
On the other hand, this ruling would prove to be much more narrow in its scope than many people had hoped for and expected. The Court declined to address the question presented directly, which asked whether people can seek redress under the self-executing takings clause if the legislature has not provided them with an affirmative cause of action.
The Court also failed to address the initial issue in this case, which was the Catch-22 the state of Texas employed to avoid their obligation to pay just compensation for the taking.
Today on Legalese we will be going through the opinion of the court to break down precisely what the court’s unanimous decision does and does not accomplish. As well as exploring some fascinating tangential aspects of this opinion.
Show Notes Page For This Episode – https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-devillier-v-texas-wrap
• Legalese Home Page – https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
• Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! – https://legaleseshow.com/
