The Fourth Amendment finds victory today in the Supreme Court case ruling of City of Los Angeles v. Patel. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court upheld a foundational principle of our constitution: Warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional.

Ten years after the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, almost to the day, the Court, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, protected property rights in an 8-1 decision. The Court held that the government must pay just compensation when taking personal property, just as it does when taking real property.

Today represents the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court issues decisions in around eighty cases each year. Some of those decisions, like Kelo, are closely contested 5-4 decisions. But Kelo has been unique because of the response that came from the public.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.

Last Thursday, the Cato Institute held an event foreshadowing the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London decision and celebrating the release of Ilya Somin’s new book, The Grasping Hand: “Kelo v. City of New London” & the Limits of Eminent Domain. There was an impressive cast of presenters with welcoming remarks by Richard Epstein, keynote delivered by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) and panelists which included attorneys that represented both sides in oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

The time is near: later this month the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on King v. Burwell. The case centers around the question of what the phrase “established by the state” means, and how it affects eligibility for subsidies.

Using civil asset forfeiture, the government often seizes the property of completely innocent individuals. However, despite their innocence, these individuals often settle with the government and forfeit a portion of their property to government authorities. Why do they do this?

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

Last Friday, the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an event with guest Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona. A state’s AG office plays an important role in fighting federal overreach. Besides prosecuting criminal cases and defending state action, many AGs, at least the good ones, also sue the federal government.

On June 2nd, the House of Representatives Committee on oversight and Government Reform began a hearing on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The hearing spanned two days and was aided by three panels of witnesses. In effort to ensure transparency, the congressmen assessed how government agencies currently view FOIA and deal with requests for information. My takeaway? FOIA is a joke and government agencies are the worst.