Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Harmon v. Kimmel, Cato Legal Briefs

Harmon v. Kimmel, Cato Legal Briefs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,625 |Likes:
Published by Cato Institute

More info:

Published by: Cato Institute on Nov 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-496
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
Ë
 JAMES D. HARMON, JR., and JEANNE HARMON,
 Petitioners,
v.JONATHAN L. KIMMEL, in his official capacityas Member and Chair of the New York City RentGuidelines Board, City of New York; DARRYL C.TOWNS, in his official capacity as Commissioner,New York State Homes and Community Renewal,
Respondents.
 
Ë
 
On Petition for Writ of Certiorarito the United States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit
 
Ë
 
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OFPACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION,CATO INSTITUTE, AND SMALL PROPERTYOWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO INSTITUTEIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS JAMES D.HARMON, JR., and JEANNE HARMON
 
Ë
 
R.
 
S.
 
R
 ADFORD
Counsel of Record
Pacific Legal Foundation930 G StreetSacramento, California 95814Telephone: (916) 419-7111Facsimile: (916) 419-7747E-mail: rsr@pacificlegal.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation, CatoInstitute, and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute
 
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Does this Court’s ruling in
Lingle v. ChevronU.S.A.
preclude the holding of the Second Circuitbelow, that the Fifth Amendment’s “explicit textualprotection” against governmental takings of propertywithout just compensation bars a substantive dueprocess claim that New York City’s Rent StabilizationLaw fails to substantially advance legitimate stateinterests?
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
QUESTION PRESENTED.....................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................iiiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE................1 ARGUMENT................................5CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTEDTO ESTABLISH UNIFORMITY  AMONG THE CIRCUITS ON THEINDEPENDENT VIABILITY OFREGULATORY TAKINGS ANDSUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIMSFOLLOWING
LINGLE v. CHEVRON 
.......5 A.
Lingle
Established That Failure To Advance Legitimate GovernmentalInterests States a Claim for a DueProcess Violation, but Not aRegulatory Taking....................7B.
Graham v. Connor
Provides No Basisfor Dismissing a Substantive DueProcess Claim That Could Not Triggerthe Protections of the Takings Clause....9C.In Contrast to the Holding of theSecond Circuit, the Ninth Circuit HasExpressly Affirmed That SubstantiveDue Process Claims Based on Failureto Substantially Advance LegitimateState Interests May Not Be Subsumedby Takings Claims ...................11CONCLUSION.............................13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->