Justices rule against a family in property case

SC sides with immigrants

WASHINGTON, June 24, (AP): The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a Wisconsin family in a property rights case that makes it easier for government officials to restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas.

The 5-3 ruling involved the family’s effort to sell part of its land along the scenic St Croix River. They planned to use the proceeds from an empty lot to pay for improvements on a cabin that sits on adjacent land.

County officials had barred the sale because conservation rules treat the two lots as a single property that can’t be divided.

The family claimed those rules essentially stripped the land of its value and asked the government for compensation. The government argued that it’s fair to view the property as a whole and said the family is owed nothing.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joining the court’s four liberal members, called the government’s action “a reasonable land-use regulation” meant to preserve the river and surrounding land. He said the property as a whole remains valuable and the family could not claim they expected to sell or develop the lots separately given regulations that existed before they acquired the lots.

The case was closely watched by property rights and business groups that say it should be easier for landowners to get compensation when government regulations restrict land use. More than 100 cities and counties across the US have similar “merger” restrictions that treat two adjacent properties as one if they have the same owner.

At issue is the constitutional requirement that private property can’t be taken for public use “without just compensation.”

The dispute began when four siblings from the Murr family tried to sell the vacant lot in 2004 to pay for improvements on a rustic cabin that sits on the plot next door. Their father had purchased the two 1.25-acre lots separately in the 1960s and both parcels had been taxed separately. The lots were later transferred to his children in the 1990s.

County officials blocked the sale, citing 1976 regulations that bar new construction on lots in the area to prevent overcrowding and pollution. A “grandfather” clause exempted existing owners, but the county said it didn’t apply to the Murrs’ empty lot alone since it was connected to the family’s other land.

Kennedy

WASHINGTON:

Also:

When a lawyer advises that a plea deal is the best option and won’t result in deportation, most immigrants facing criminal charges agree to plead guilty.

But what if the lawyer is wrong, and deportation is certain?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 Friday that immigrants in those circumstances can have a second chance in court and risk going to trial, even if the prosecution’s case is very strong.

The justices sided with South Korean native Jae Lee, who has lived most of his life in the United States. Lee pleaded guilty to drug charges in 2009 after his lawyer mistakenly assured him he would not be deported.

In fact, Lee, who had been living in the Memphis, Tennessee, area, pleaded guilty to the kind of serious crime that makes deportation near-automatic for noncitizens.

He was sentenced to a year in prison, but has been behind bars for 7-1/2 years while fighting to withdraw his plea and take his chances at trial, John Bursch, Lee’s Supreme Court lawyer, said.