Constitutional Law
Oct. 28, 2026
Supremely short sighted
The Supreme Court missed two opportunities to remedy the injustice of SWAT takings. When government severely damages innocent citizens' property in pursuit of criminals, the Fifth Amendment demands compensation.
Michael M. Berger
Senior Counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4185
Fax: (310) 996-6968
Email: mmberger@manatt.com
USC Law School
Michael M. Berger is senior counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, where his practice focuses on appeals with a particular interest in constitutional land use. He has argued four takings cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had two chances recently to remedy a sort of governmental wrongdoing that lawyers in the property rights field have come to call SWAT takings. These cases involve the taking of or severe damaging of private property during local law enforcement SWAT operations.
The two cases in which certiorari was recently denied are Pena v. City of Los Angeles and Hadley v. City of South Bend. They came from the 9th and 7th Circuits, respectively. Pena...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In