• OT23.15 - DeVillier v. Texas

  • 2024/10/09
  • 再生時間： 10 分
  • ポッドキャスト

OT23.15 - DeVillier v. Texas

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

  • サマリー

  • 22-913 DEVILLIER V. TEXAS

    QUESTION PRESENTED: In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was "self-executing" and that "[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary" for claims for just compensation because they "are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]" 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized.

    The question presented is: May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

    Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

    QP - 00:21

    Opinion of the Court - 1:15

    For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.
    続きを読む 一部表示

あらすじ・解説

22-913 DEVILLIER V. TEXAS

QUESTION PRESENTED: In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was "self-executing" and that "[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary" for claims for just compensation because they "are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]" 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized.

The question presented is: May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

QP - 00:21

Opinion of the Court - 1:15

For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.
政治学 世界
続きを読む 一部表示

OT23.15 - DeVillier v. Texasに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。