If you know, you know.
Pacific Legal Foundation (that’s us) has put out a call for papers about “Rethinking Penn Central.” Here’s the details (pdf).
Here’s some of the suggested topics:
- Can Penn Central be salvaged or does it need to be fully replaced?
- If it is to be replaced, what should the new test be?
- Alternatively, what improvements can be made to Penn Central that would address problems raised by critics without uprooting the test entirely?
- Is economic loss primarily relevant to compensation owed rather than the threshold question of whether a taking has occurred?
- Can a more categorical approach, like those taken in cases including Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Hodel v. Irving, or Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, adequately address regulatory takings?
- What insights does the original meaning of the Takings Clause offer regarding how to fix or replace Penn Central?
- Do colonial or English practices or precedents offer insights into a better approach to regulatory takings?
- How did courts during the ratification and reconstruction periods address regulatory takings prior to Oliver Wendell Holmes’s infamous “too far” statement, and what lessons do those precedents hold for how to fix or replace Penn Central?
- What are the pitfalls that a new test must be careful to avoid?
July 1, 2023 deadline to submit proposals. Accepted papers even get a $2,500 honorarium, and travel to the October research roundtable.
Check it out, and submit!
Related Stories
- CA6: Legislative Conditions Are Subject To Nexus-And-Proportionality Requirements
- Unanimous SCOTUS: “state law cannot be the only source” Of Property Rights, And “traditional property law principles” As Enforced By The Takings Clause Play A Role
- New L Rev Article: “Property and the Right to Enter” (Bethany Berger)