A win for property rights at SCOTUS

My Cato colleague Roger Pilon explains the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, in which the federal government flooded a property owner’s land but resisted demands for compensation on the grounds that the “taking” of property was temporary, since the flooding would subside. Earlier here.

One Comment

  • They should have said that it would result in greater tax revenue like Kelo.