The Court should take up Pacetta v. Ponce Inlet and use it as an opportunity to clarify at least one aspect of property law: that when one of Penn Central’s three ad‐hoc inquiries tips strongly in favor of the owner, a taking has occurred and compensation is due.
In the context of Colorado’s campaign finance laws, which encourage individuals to function as an arm of the state by instructing them to “prosecute” perceived violations, it is doubly important that the public have access to relevant court filings and records.
The Ninth Circuit has blessed the commandeering of professional speech to deliver any favored government message under the guise of protecting public health and given itself permission to apply intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny to laws involving compelled speech. The Supreme Court should reverse this decision.
While some people are frightened by the prospect of 3D‐printed guns—including, perhaps, some of the judges in the lower courts here—that is no reason to allow the government to shut down speech about such guns without ensuring that the restrictions comport with the strictures of the First Amendment.