"To put it another way, the Government “forcibly took property worth vastly more than the debts these [Companies] owed, and failed to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft.” Hall, 51 F.4th at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
"This Court has repeatedly established that the
Takings Clause “is addressed to every sort of interest
the citizen may possess.” United States v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 378 (1945). The Companies’ net
worth is one such interest. The Court has further
instructed that governments may burden those property interests in a manner consistent with
"background principles.” Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1029. But
what this Court has had “no occasion” to determine, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 629 (2001),
is under what circumstances statutory enactments
can so inhere in a property owner’s title as to deprive
him of any interest that could be taken.
The circuits are divided. On one side are the many
circuits that conduct a careful evaluation of history, tradition, and longstanding practice to ascertain the contours of a property interest in light of background
principles. On the other side is the Federal Circuit, which instead allows constitutional property interests to be redefined or abolished by the mere ipse dixit of
statutory enactments. Petitioner respectfully submits that now is the occasion to ensure that the Court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Federal Claims—and thus the lion’s share of takings
claims against the federal government—does not continue to disregard the Constitution’s protection of private property.
CONCLUSION
The Court should grant the petition for a writ
of certiorari."
PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Filed at SCOTUS on 11/29/22
Here's what ipse dixit means:
Ipse dixit is a Latin phrase that translates to “he said it himself.” Ipse dixit means a person’s own assertion without relying on any authority or proof. It usually implies an assertion of authority, as in a statement is true based on the speaker’s authority and nothing else. In legal context the term is usually used to criticize arguments based solely upon authority and not backed by any proof.
