Real Estate & Property Law

More Amicus Briefs In Empress Casino (Can The Gov't "Take" Money?)

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

Two more amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 08-945 (cert. petition filed Jan. 21, 2009) are available.

In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court held (896 N.E.2d 277 (Ill. 2008) that a regulation which imposes a 3% "surcharge" on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200 million per year, and then gives the money to horse racing tracks is not a taking of property. Several casinos challenged the law asserting, among other arguments, that the redistribution of their money to tracks was a taking.  The Illinois Supreme Court held that the regulation was a tax, and not subject to takings analysis.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation's brief argues the Court should review the case to resolve the confusion created by Eastern Ent., Inc. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), and because the Illinois Supreme Court's decision means that money is not "property."

The brief of property and constitutional law professors Eric Claeys, Richard Epstein, Nocole Garnett, Eric Kades and Ilya Somin argues the issue presented "breaks new ground in interpreting the protections afforded by the Federal Constitution" and therefore the Court should review the case to delineate the boundary between an unlawful confiscation and legitimate taxation.

The cert petition is posted here, and the amicus brief of the Cato Institute is here. Other amicus briefs have been filed, and will be posted soon.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on March 06, 2009 (boomark / email).