This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Saturday, July 1st, 2017.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court recently handed down the property rights case of Murphy, Wisconsin.

In a word, it's disappointing.

That according to Roger Pallon, Vice President for Legal Affairs

at the Cato Institute, the decision combines dubious rulings

of the past to create a less stable environment for property owners going forward.

We spoke this week.

Property rights are not well protected by the Supreme Court.

They are at least not consistently protected,

as we would hope, based upon a standard issue

reading of the Constitution. And in this case of Murr we have yet another case

in this case a fairly disappointing outcome.

Absolutely the decision that came down last week in Murphy, Wisconsin shows once again how it is that the Supreme Court has given us a very erratic reading of our property rights and it doesn't look to improve

until they get clear about the theory of the matter and that's the numb of it.

Let's start with the takings clause itself of

the Fifth Amendment which says no shall private property be taken for public use

without just compensation.

And so that implicitly authorizes the power of eminent domain.

But it should be used sparingly because it is a forced association and secondly when it is

used it must be done for a public use and just compensation must be paid.

So what we have to do is define property,

...