Andrew Ward and Bob Belden discuss a case challenging Kentucky's Certificate of Need law. They highlight the difficulties faced by two Nepali entrepreneurs trying to open a home health agency. The discussion revolves around the weaknesses of the rational basis test and the need for federal court protection of economic liberty. They also explore a case involving foreclosure and the violation of property rights. The panel delves into the history of equity and law, analyzing its impact on property rights and contracts.
Kentucky's certificate of need law violates the Constitution and restricts economic liberty
Michigan's property tax act allows the government to retain excess proceeds from foreclosed homes, infringing on property rights
Deep dives
Summary of Podcast Episode
In this podcast episode, the hosts discuss two cases from the Sixth Circuit. The first case, 'Istovir vs. Freilander', challenges the constitutionality of Kentucky's certificate of need law. The law requires businesses to show that they are needed based on existing agencies, preventing new businesses from entering the market. The hosts argue that this law infringes on the entrepreneurs' right to earn a living and lacks a meaningful rational basis. The second case, 'Hall vs. Meisner', involves Michigan's general property tax act, which allows local governments to initiate foreclosure proceedings on properties with tax liens. The court examines the history of equity and property rights, finding that the Michigan law conflicts with centuries of property protection and allows the government to retain the excess proceeds from the sale of foreclosed homes. The hosts emphasize the importance of protecting property rights and argue for a meaningful review of these laws by the Supreme Court.
Challenging the Constitutionality of Kentucky's Certificate of Need Law
The hosts discuss the case 'Istovir vs. Freilander', which challenges Kentucky's certificate of need law. The law requires new medical businesses to demonstrate a need based on existing agencies, effectively restricting competition in the market. The hosts argue that this law infringes on individuals' right to earn a living and lacks a meaningful rational basis. They highlight the entrepreneurs' case, who wanted to open a home health agency to serve the Nepali-speaking population in Louisville, Kentucky, but were barred by the certificate of need law. The hosts emphasize the importance of clarifying the standard of review for laws that affect economic liberty and call for Supreme Court intervention.
Equity Theft and Property Rights
The hosts explore the case 'Hall vs. Meisner', which involves Michigan's general property tax act and the foreclosure proceedings it allows for tax liens. They discuss how this law infringes on property rights by denying property owners the full value of their homes. The hosts highlight the case of Tawanda Hall, whose home was sold for more than the tax lien, but she received none of the proceeds. They emphasize the importance of protecting property rights and equitable interests in real property when governments initiate foreclosure proceedings. The hosts call attention to the ongoing debate over the application of state law to define property rights and the need for meaningful review of laws that infringe on those rights.
The Institute for Justice has asked the Supreme Court to take a case challenging Kentucky’s Certificate of Need law (aka a “CON law”—very much a double entendre). Two attorneys in the case, Andrew Ward and Bob Belden, discuss how their clients simply want to provide home health care to their own immigrant community, why the law that prevents that violates the Constitution, and how the Sixth Circuit disagreed. There’s a lot of discussion about how the rational basis test turns out to not be so rational. Then the panel moves on to a property rights case, also in the Sixth Circuit, challenging “equity theft.” You’ll learn a few things about law versus equity and why theft by the government is still theft.
