I think that one of the central questions here is not whether Robbins in any way acted illegally. But as Ayn Rand once pointed out, when you make so many things illegal that it’s impossible to live without breaking a law here or there, you’re always going to be a lawbreaker. If you watch someone closely enough, you’ll find laws that they’ve broken. For example, they’ve cited him in violation of the “grazing laws”. I never knew there were grazing laws, but so be it. The suit, though, suggests that they selectively cited him and singled him out for breaking the same laws his neighbors were breaking, in an effort to harass him.

The Supreme Court isn’t answering a question as to whether the grazing laws are Constitutional. They’re answering the question whether the selective and arbitrary enforcement of these laws, prosecuted in a way to be punitive and retaliatory to Robbins, is Constitutional.

I disagree as whether that’s a primary issue in the case. The question appears to largely center on whether the government can retaliate against you for not going along with what they ask.

Check out this discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy:

If the BLM did the same thing to punish Robbins for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize the agency, his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the BLM, or his right to engage in religious practices that the BLM disapproves of, the unconstitutionality of the agency’s actions would be unquestionable. Everyone agrees that these rights would be worthless, or at least gravely impaired, if government could punish people for exercising them. The same point applies to citizens’ constitutional right to avoid uncompensating takings of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Note that this issue is separable from the question of the substantive scope of constitutional property rights. Even if you believe that the scope of constitutional property rights should be very narrow, there is still good reason to forbid the government from punishing people for exercising those (admittedly narrow) rights.

What the BLM is doing here is no different from a a mafia protection racket. You pay your protection money (in this case sign over an easement), and if you choose not to, they’ll make sure your life is a living hell.

The question is not whether Robbins has the right to say no to the government when they request an easement, the question is whether the government should be allowed to harass and retaliate against him for legally saying no.

How this isn’t an intuitive understanding in all people… I just can’t fathom it.

Fundamental rights of property, are so integral to our concept of freedom, liberty, and society; those who would abuse them in such a manner cannot possibly understand, or for that matter function within, our society or government.

It’s a sad thing, and I hope the supreme court rules for the homeowner.

Considering the results of Georgia v. Randolph, I have high hopes.

Thanks to Liberty Papers for pointing out this editorial on Robbins v. Wilkie that appears in the Colorado Springs Gazette. The Papers has a few other choice comments as well….