This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Monday, June 28, 2010. I'm Caleb Brown.

It's a case of a judicial taking of formerly Beach Front property and the Supreme Court went according to Cato Supreme Court

review editor Ilia Shapiro the wrong way but it went the wrong way and perhaps the

best possible way and the case of Beach re-nourishment may have implications for the case of

McDonald v. City of Chicago set to be decided today,

the first post-Heller Supreme Court Second Amendment case.

Some Beachfront property owners, oceanfront property owners in Florida, were losing

some of their rights of access to the beach and their view and in fact the whole idea

that they had an oceanfront property rather than ocean view.

The Florida State Program under the Department of Environmental Protection

filled in some sand.

There's no indication the beach was eroding, but nevertheless they created new beach

land and took ownership of that.

The state said that this new beach that we created as an extension of your property is now

ours.

And so again, effectively the property owners didn't lose land per se but

they lost exclusive access to the water and the state can do things on their strips that perhaps

the owners don't like, etc.

And so they sued saying that this violated their property rights and won until the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Florida lower court and said that in fact

this was not a violation of their property rights for various reasons.

And I think were wrong on the underlying Florida law.

...