Buckeye Reporter

The Buckeye Institute has filed amicus briefs in two significant property rights cases, Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative and Yono v. Ingham County, at the request of the Michigan Supreme Court. The court recognized the expertise of The Buckeye Institute's legal team and their strong legal arguments.

Jay R. Carson, a senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute, emphasized the importance of the takings clause in these cases. "The words in the takings clause carry the same meaning today that they did when they were written with quill and ink by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution," Carson stated. "Simply put, the government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation."

In its briefs, The Buckeye Institute highlighted that the roots of the takings clause—or just compensation clause—can be traced back to Magna Carta, colonial statutes, and are included in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, from which both Michigan and Ohio originated. The institute argues that this clause is unconditional and insists that when private property is taken for public use by the government, it must compensate former owners categorically.

The Buckeye Institute urges the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold constitutional rights regarding private property ownership and not to adopt a dismissive attitude towards taking property without appropriate compensation.