« Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman on the President and Emoluments
Michael Ramsey
| Main | John Mikhail: The Definition of 'Emolument' in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806
Michael Ramsey »

07/16/2017

James Burling on Regulatory Takings and Originalism
Michael Ramsey

James Burling at Pacific Legal Foundation: Yes, Justice Thomas, the Doctrine of Regulatory Takings is Originalist. From the introduction:

In his dissent in Murr v. Wisconsin, Justice Thomas opined that “[t]he Court, however, has never purported to ground those precedents in the Constitution as it was originally understood.” and “[i]n my view, it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

With all due respect to Justice Thomas, and we respect him greatly, this might not be necessary. The often-espoused notion that the doctrine of regulatory takings sprang forth from the head of Justice Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon is wrong. After this idea was put forth by Justice Scalia (of all people) in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, a number of scholars set out to refute it, on both historical and doctrinal grounds. Rather than repeat these arguments at length, what follows is a partial list of some of the better scholarly arguments, pro and con, on the subject.