At Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin has these posts on the takings clause cases on which the Supreme Court granted review last week:
Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Whether there is a "Legislative" Exception to the Takings Clause
The first post concerns Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, in which the question presented is:
Whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation.
The second post is about Devillier v. Texas, where the question presented is:
Whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.
Off the top of my head, both lower court decisions seem wrong as inconsistent with the way we usually think about constitutional rights. (Professor Somin has more sophisticated arguments for why they are wrong.) The cases may turn out to be of originalist interest — I would think that there would be enough practice under state laws of eminent domain in the nineteenth century to assess whether there is any originalist foundation for what seem on their face to be sort of odd conclusions by the courts of appeals.
Posted at 6:08 AM