Happy trails, with paid-for takings

The Supreme Court, 8-1 with Sotomayor dissenting, agrees with a Cato Institute brief (earlier) and disagrees with the government: the feds can’t conjure away landowners’ rights as part of the “rails-to-trails” program. Trevor Burrus explains.

One Comment

  • Question: What does or should happen if a particular partial taking has a negative value, that is if the partial taking actually increases the value of the remaining parcel beyond the value of the original parcel?