zlacker

It's actually not legal, at least in California. That's why he's trying to take it to the Supreme Court- he's hoping to get the federal government to override state laws.

He was also completely aware of this when he bought the property, so it's not like this is a surprise or someone forcing him to change things. He's the one who broke the law and broke the status quo that had existed at that beach.

>>tedivm+(OP)
Property rights are constitutionally protected, and under the precedents surrounding the 14th amendments, this overrules California's rules. Eminent domain remains legal, but legally speaking, Khosla is in the right here.

>>mises+U1
The Supreme Court begs to differ.

>>dEnigm+F5
The Supreme Court didn't grant cert; that's different. That means they don't want to set precedent or believe sufficient precedent exists already. This was last adjudicated in 1999 with Saenz v. Roe, where California tried to set new residents' welfare to what they got in other states for one year. The court ruled this violated the constitutional protection of interstate travel, and upheld the view that the 14th amendment applied all constitutional rights to all states. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0

This undoubtedly then applies the 5th amendment takings clause: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is clearly violated in this sense, and the state cannot violate this right (see above).

The fact that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert probably means they believe there is already precedent here, or just as probably that they didn't have the time. They always have a full docket; they were probably just out of slots.

I urge others to rebut this from a legal sense, not just say they disagree. People keep killing my comments, but it seems like they all just dislike the "selfish" appearance of the actions.

>>mises+Y7
The Supreme Court refused to overturn the appeal, which means they upheld the decision of the lower courts.

I honestly don't understand how you can take that action and try to turn it around the way you are.

>>tedivm+xV
> The Supreme Court refused to overturn the appeal, which means they upheld the decision of the lower courts.

Completely incorrect. "The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these [appealed] cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year." Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

The SC not hearing the case doesn't mean they uphold the lower court's ruling, it means they aren't hearing the case.