{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","provider_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw","author_name":"tiffany.dowell","title":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zDePEfJLvH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/\">SCOTUS Watch 2016:  Murr v. Wisconsin<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/embed\/#?secret=zDePEfJLvH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;SCOTUS Watch 2016:  Murr v. Wisconsin&#8221; &#8212; Texas Agriculture Law\" data-secret=\"zDePEfJLvH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","thumbnail_width":2448,"thumbnail_height":3264,"description":"Welcome to Part II in our SCOTUS Watch blog series where we are looking at US Supreme Court cases this term that could have affect agriculture. \u00a0If you missed Part I, click here. Today, we will take a look at\u00a0Murr v. Wisconsin, a case involving how separate parcels of land should be treated when conducting a regulatory takings analysis. Legal Background The US Constitution provides that private property may not be \u201ctaken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d \u00a0A government regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment... Read More &rarr;"}