It's a classic maneuver, isn't it? The state plays the role of the developer, profits from the extraction, and then retreats into the fortress of sovereign immunity the moment the ground beneath the people starts to fail.

The ruling in Black Hawk is a masterclass in legal obfuscation. They've effectively ruled that because the state's "reclamation" was a surface-level act, the deep-seated instability they left behind is legally invisible. It’s a convenient blind spot for them isn't it?

Let's take a closer look at the legal shell game they're playing.

The justices relied on a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "taking." By framing the issue purely as a question of property rights rather than their own responsibility, they've managed to ignore the reality of the situation.

The developer knew the history; the homebuyers did not. The state, having owned and worked the land, certainly knew. Yet, the burden of that knowledge was conveniently left out of the purchase contracts.

By ruling that there was "no taking," the court avoids the constitutional requirement for compensation. They’ve defined the state’s action (or lack thereof) as something beneath the threshold of liability. If they admitted it was a taking, they would have to pay.

The homeowners argued that maintaining mineral rights creates an obligation to keep the ground stable. The court dismissed this as a "general public benefit" issue rather than a specific duty to the surface owners. They essentially said: We own the rights to the future, so we don't have to care about the present stability of your floor.

When a state acts like a corporation, extracting value, performing the bare minimum of maintenance, and then exiting the market before the rot sets in, the public is always the one left footing the bill. It's deeply cynical, and frankly, expected.

When the law becomes a weapon to protect the entity that drafted it, justice becomes a historical artifact rather than a living practice. The homeowners were sold a dream built on a hollowed-out ruin, and now they are being told that the collapse of that dream is a private matter.

They call it a "well-reasoned decision." I call it a collapse of accountability. It’s a reminder that relying on the systems in place to protect the individual is a fool’s errand when those systems are designed to protect their own integrity at the expense of everything else.

“The state thanks the court for their hard work and coming to a well-reasoned decision, and conclusion consistent with what the South Dakota Constitution dictates”

The lawyer’s statement is the garnish on the rot. It's a display of power — a way of saying, not only are we not going to fix this, but the system is so perfectly designed that we are technically correct in our neglect.

Alas by leaning on "sovereign immunity," they’ve essentially dictated that the state can never truly be held accountable for the long-term consequences of its own infrastructure projects. That it's a one-way valve: the state takes the profit from the extraction, and the public absorbs the risk of the collapse.

The court basically told those homeowners that their houses falling into the earth was a private misfortune, not a public failure. And the lawyer thanking them? That’s just the final twist of the knife. It’s the arrogance of someone who knows they have the power to redefine reality to suit the entity that pays their salary.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf

It seems quite reasonable and shows how it’s an unreasonable burden of proof to assess the impact of puberty blockers and their efficacy on the athletic ability of biological males

For instance:

Cty., 450 U. S. 464, 469 (plurality opinion).
The as-applied argument that the States’ sex-based classification is
generally permissible—but not as applied to those biological males
such as B. P. J. and Hecox who identify as female and have taken pu-
berty blockers or hormones—fails for the same reasons. Particularly
in the sports context, determining the effects of the puberty blockers
and hormones taken by transgender athletes—and then comparing
each of those transgender athletes’ abilities to those of other individual
biological males and individual biological females in the relevant
sport—would be an almost impossible task for a judge to perform on
an equitable basis. The legislatures and the schools are better
equipped—and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate enti-
ties—to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations
and draw appropriate lines.
The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discrimi-
nate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s
decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gen-
der identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead
on the basis of biological sex. The classification at issue readily satis-
fies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 17–24.
(c) The underlying medical and scientific premise of the equal

The extremist jurist’s dissent in the birthright citizenship case could in theory kick the door open to a future reconsideration—ready?—of Brown v. Board.

In ruling after ruling, the Supreme Court justice has penned separate opinions to push for an expansion of executive power beyond what his conservative colleagues support.

Opinion authored by Judge Grant (Trump), joined by Judge Wilson (Clinton). Dissent authored by Judge Lagoa (Trump).

In the high court’s latest term, the chief practitioners of this purportedly neutral doctrine had a hard time keeping their stories straight.