Constitutional Law
Jul. 29, 2026
If you make it available, should they come?
The Supreme Court's review of Grand v. City of University Heights will examine the intersection of religious freedom, land-use regulation and property rights, including whether takings-law ripeness requirements should apply when government actions allegedly burden religious exercise.
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.
It is not often that we see cases demonstrating the potential overlap of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and precepts of property takings law under the Fifth Amendment. We discussed one such case in May (Church v. State: A takings conundrum, May 27, 2026). That case, as you may recall, involved litigation between the feder...
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