The hits keep on coming. Here’s the latest complaint alleging that a coronavirus-related shut-down order is a taking (among other things).

This joins a long list (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for example) of complaints alleging takings. We’re guessing there’s no horizon on such claims in sight yet.

Here’s a summary of the takings claim:

The Orders and Emergency Directives effectively amount to an impermissible “partial” or “complete” taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in that the prohibition of Plaintiffs’ operation of their “Non-Essential Business” constitutes a regulatory taking of private property, for public purpose, without providing just compensation therefore. Furthermore, the Orders and Emergency Directives violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment in that the complete prohibition of the business operations of “Non-Essential Businesses” constitutes an irrational, arbitrary, and capricious law bearing no rational basis to any valid government interest. The notion that the government-ordered shutdown of “Non-Essential Businesses” (such as Plaintiffs’) is absolutely necessary in curbing the spread of COVID-19 constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on Plaintiffs’ civil rights and liberties to operate in a free-market economy. As national and statewide data has recently suggested, the economic impact of the mandatory, unconstitutional closures of “Non-Essential Businesses” has had an unnecessarily devastating and unprecedented crippling effect on local and state economies. ALL businesses are ‘essential’ and necessary to the maintenance of the health, welfare and prosperity of Nevada’s citizens.

Complaint at 16-17.

Complaint, Calvary Chapel Lone Mountain v. Sisolak, No. 2:20-cv-009007 (D. Nev. May 20, 2020)