Today's Washington Post has a story about an interesting case in which certain property owners claim that Florida's beach restoration program has resulted in a "judicial taking," because their homes are no longer waterfront properties. (Click here.) The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in the case next week. "Justices will examine a concept they have pondered for more than 40 years without resolution: whether a decision by the judicial branch, rather than the executive or legislative, can create the kind of taking of private property forbidden by the Constitution." The case is Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Tags: Federal Constitutional Law, Real Property

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has an interesting piece (click here) about a federal lawsuit filed earlier this week that seeks an order that the U.S. House of Representatives increase its size, from 435 members to roughly double that number. "On Thursday, a group called Apportionment.us filed suit in federal district court for the Northern District of Mississippi on behalf of five people, one resident from each of the following states: Montana, Delaware, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah. The quintet’s complaint: that their votes carry far less weight in the House of Representatives than do those from residents of other states, like Rhode Island and Iowa. . . .The group alleges this is the case because the population variance between the most under-represented congressional district in the nation and most over-represented district exceeds 80%. For example, according to the complaint, Montana has one representative for every approximately 905,000 people while its neighbor to the south, Wyoming, has one representative for approximately every 495,000 people."

Tags: Federal Constitutional Law, United States Congress

Today's Wall Street Journal contains a thought-provoking piece (click here) concerning the extent to which corporations should be treated as natural persons. The starting point for the article is a comment that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made during arguments last week in a campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Docket No. 08-205.

Tags: Supreme Court of the United States, Federal Constitutional Law, Corporations

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports on a federal district court decision in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday this week in which “U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled . . . in a 68-page opinion that the ratings of certain securities -- those that were distributed to a limited number of investors -- don't deserve the same free-speech protection as more general ratings of corporate bonds that were widely disseminated.” According to the article, “[t]he judge's decision is one of the first to interpret the extent to which the firms can expect First Amendment protection for their ratings of certain securities, which have been the focus of much litigation since the credit crisis.”

Tags: Securities, Federal Constitutional Law

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about a potentially very important case concerning restrictions on corporate campaign spending, which the U.S. Supreme Court has set for (re)argument on September 9, 2009. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Docket No. 08-205.

Tags: Supreme Court of the United States, Federal Constitutional Law