Eminent Domain Report

We've been following the Ninth Circuit Guggenheim case for more than a year.  That Court's change in its holding between the initial decision by a three-judge panel and the subsequent en banc decision, coupled with the considerable attention the decision received, led many to think the case was ripe for Supreme Court review. 

Today, we learned that the Supreme Court denied the owner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, meaning the en banc Court's decision will stand.  (As a reminder, that opinion held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance did not constitute a taking, despite the fact that the ordinance transferred the vast majority of the mobile home park's value from the park owners to the tenants.)

For those looking for more insights into the Court's reasoning in denying the cert petition, you'll have to try to read the tea leaves of a summary order, "Certiorari Denied," that lists about 200 cases, of which Guggenheim is the 18th.  Most, including Guggenheim, contain no further information.

For those who think this is a shocking result, remember that the sheer number of people seeking Supreme Court review makes the odds of success quite low, even for significant cases.  As I forecast back in February, even if one viewed this case as having a "great" chance at being reviewed, the odds were still likely only around 10%.  In the end, the Guggenheims will have to suffer with the other 200-odd parties whose hopes of a victory in the Supreme Court were dashed in summary fashion. 

In other Supreme Court news, I'm happy to report that today's order also contained information concerning rulings on various attorney disciplinary proceedings, and of the 11 attorneys ordered disbarred from the Supreme Court, I didn't recognize a single name.