United States Supreme Court Briefs

AASPO has participated in several cases before the United States Supreme Court.

United States Supreme Court Briefs

AASPO has participated in several cases before the United States Supreme Court.

San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) No. 04-340

Brief on the Merits of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation, AASPO and 9 others in support of Petitioner.

Counsel of Record: Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation

QUESTION: Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in holding, contrary to a holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that issue preclusion bars consideration of a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause where: (1) a state court has rejected the plaintiffs' analogous state-law cause of action; and (2) the plaintiffs filed their state court action for the sole purpose of ripening their Takings Clause claim, as required by this Court's decision in Williamson County Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City?

Kelo v. City of New London (2004) No. 04-108

Brief on the Merits of amicus curiae Cascade Policy Institute, AASPO and 9 others in support of Petitioner.

Counsel of Record: James L. Huffman, Dean, Lewis & Clark Law School

QUESTION: Should the Court apply a heightened standard of review in regulatory takings cases involving eminent domain and draw a distinction between "public use" and "public purpose" in applying the public use language of the 5th Amendment takings clause?

San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) No. 04-340

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation, AASPO and 9 others.

Counsel of Record: Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation

QUESTION: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that issue preclusion bars consideration of a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause where: (1) a state court has reject the plaintiffs' analogous state-law cause of action; and (2) the plaintiffs filed their state court action for the sole purpose of ripening their Takings Clause claims?

Cole v. County of Santa Barbara (2002) No. 01-1773

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amicus curiae AASPO and 14 affiliates and allies.

Counsel of Record: Martin S. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation

QUESTION: When does a "taking" occur? The California courts have applied a procedural bar to strip petitioner of its constitutional rights, thus permitting the state to take for public use the beach front owned by petitioner without compensation.

Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) No. 00-1903

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amicus curiae AASPO.

Counsel of Record: F. Patricia Callahan, AASPO president

QUESTION: Should the state court of California be permitted to stand between a small property owner and a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action?

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2001)

No. 00-1167

Brief on the Merits of amicus curiae AASPO and 15 affiliates and allies in support of Petitioner.

Counsel of Record: Martin S. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation

QUESTION: May government impose "temporary" moratoria on land development without paying compensation to affected landowners thereby effectively creating an uncompensated government "taking" of their land?

Santa Monica Beach LTD v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1999). No. 98-1512

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amicus curiae AASPO and 14 others.

Counsel of Record: Michael E. Malamut, New England Legal Foundation

QUESTIONS: Should the end-means nexus test under Nollan be used to determine whether a rent control law effects a regulatory taking as applied to a specific real property? Is a claim for an as-applied regulatory taking properly set forth by factual allegations which, if proven at trial, would show that the application of a rent control ordinance has "no relationship at all" to its admittedly legitimate police power objectives?

Phillips v.Washington Legal Foundation (1997) No. 96-1578

Brief on the Merits of amici curiae Defenders of Property Rights, AASPO and 7 others in support of Respondents.

Counsel of Record: Nancie G. Marzulla, Defenders of Property Rights

QUESTION: Is interest earned on client trust funds held in IOLTA accounts a property interest of the client, cognizable under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Daddario v. Cape Cod Commission (1997) No. 97-632

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amicus curiae AASPO and 9 affiliates and allies.

Counsel of Record: Todd S. Brilliant, New England Legal Foundation

QUESTION: Whether, in denying his application to extract loam, sand and gravel, the Cape Cod Commission took both Mr. Daddario's mineral estate and his property without just compensation?

Stupak-Thrall v. United States (1996) No. 96-466

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Brief of amici curiae Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Defenders of Property Rights, with AASPO and 38 others as co-amici.

Counsel of Record: Nancie G. Marzulla, Defenders of Property Rights

QUESTIONS: Whether the fact that the federal government has authority to regulate public land under the Property Clause also gives it authority to regulate adjacent private property? Whether the federal government may, by reason of public land ownership, displace state private property rights and police power regulations on adjacent land? Whether the "valid exiting rights" provision contained in the Michigan Wilderness Act stops the government from now claiming that Petitioners' property rights are not grandfathered?

OTHER.

In 2002, AASPO president, F. Patricia Callahan, in her personal capacity as a member of the Supreme Court bar, was counsel of record on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in an important eminent domain case, Tal Technologies, Inc. v. The City of Oklahoma City. No. 01-1147. At the same time, AASPO wrote an opinion editorial on the Tal case that was published in the Washington Times, and a feature article that was transmitted over the UPI wire service.