At Greenwire, Lawrence Hurley reports on a very
interesting development at the U.S. Supreme Court. He writes:

After several years of paying little attention to property
rights — a darling cause of conservative activists — the Supreme
Court has abruptly changed course.

The justices have agreed to hear two cases this term,
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States and
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that
concern the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires
the government to compensate property owners when it takes
property.

Property rights advocates also had some interest in two cases
decided last term that, while not raising takings questions, did
focus on broader questions of property rights in relation to
government interference. In both, Sackett v. EPA and
PPL Montana v. Montana, the property owners won.

The flurry of activity is in stark contrast to previous years.
The last time the court heard more than one case on property rights
was in the 2004-2005 term.

Read the whole story here.

The Supreme Court heard
Arkansas Game Fish Commission v. U.S. in early
October (Koontz isn’t scheduled until January) and as I

reported here at Reason after attending the oral
argument, the federal government’s case appeared to be in trouble.
The coming months may bring at least one more important Supreme
Court victory for property rights.