Posted by Ilya Somin:
More on the Decline in Judicial Protection for Property Rights;
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_05-2009_07_11.shtml#1247000373


   In [1]his most recent post on our debate, Eugene agrees with [2]my
   claim that judicial protection for property rights has declined
   substantially since the New Deal period, but claims that judicial
   protection for property rights was "not very broad" even before that.

   It is certainly true that pre-New Deal courts did not protect property
   rights as much as many libertarians would want. However, they did
   provide quite extensive protections for property rights that went far
   beyond what we have today. Certainly, cases like [3]Berman v. Parker,
   [4]Kelo, [5]Poletown, and various modern regulatory takings decisions
   would have come out the other way before the New Deal. Under pre-New
   Deal jurisprudence, [6]hundreds of thousands of people would not have
   been expelled from their homes by "economic development," blight, and
   "urban renewal" takings. This alone shows that the difference between
   pre-New Deal and modern property rights jurisprudence was both stark
   and laden with important real-world consequences.

   It is certainly true that pre-New Deal courts did not provide absolute
   protection for property rights all the time. No constitutional right
   ever gets complete protection from judges, and none is totally immune
   to being overriden by competing considerations. On the other hand,
   many of the cases Eugene cites as upholding limits on property rights
   actually involved restrictions on economic liberties with little or no
   connection to property ownership. That is true of the examples he
   gives involving freedom of contract, maximum hours laws, restrictions
   on the sale of alcohol, bans on lotteries, and others. Pre-New Deal
   courts generally gave stronger protection for property rights (which
   were specifically enumerated in federal and state constitutions) than
   other economic liberties (most of which were implied from the Due
   Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Supreme Court's
   endorsement of zoning in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)
   really did lead to substantial infringements on property rights. But
   this case came near the very end of the pre-New Deal era, and the
   Court's opinion did not extend the kind of categorical blank check for
   zoning that later decisions provided. Rather, the Euclid [7]majority
   opinion emphasized that it decision was limited to the specific type
   of zoning considered in that case, and that other forms of zoning
   might still be constitutionally suspect.

   Ultimately, the disagreement between us may not be that great. We seem
   to agree that there was a significant decline in judicial protection
   for property rights after the 1930s. Perhaps we differ only on what
   counts as "broad protection" for property rights. In my view, there is
   a huge difference between courts that allow thousands of people to be
   forcibly expelled from their homes and ones that forbid such
   practices. There is also a huge difference between a jurisprudence
   that denies compensation for nearly all regulatory takings and one
   that provides it for a fairly wide range of them. Banning such
   practices (along with a number of other restrictions on property
   rights) falls far short of a property rights utopia. But it certainly
   counts as "broad protection" in my book - especially compared to the
   modern alternative.

   In any event, my main purpose is to show that pre-New Deal Courts
   provided far greater protection for property rights than exists today,
   and that the difference between the two has substantial real-world
   effects. Whether the word "broad protection" applies is a less
   important question.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_05-2009_07_11.shtml#1246994985
   2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_05-2009_07_11.shtml#1246952705
   3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0348_0026_ZS.html
   4. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
   5. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677763
   6. http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/homepages/isomin/files/LegalTimes_Blight.pdf
   7. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0272_0365_ZS.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to