Almost a century ago, Justice Holmes famously declared that a regulation becomes a taking of property if it goes too far. Judges and scholars have struggled ever since to give meaning to this test.Murr v Wisconsin is the most recent Supreme Court decision wrestling with this issue. This 2017 decision seems to have been something of a sleeper, because it is lacking in dramatic facts or stirring rhetoric. But it actually has broad implications for the rights of property owners and the scope of government regulatory powers. Murr sends a strong signal that the property rights crusade led by Justice Antonin Scalia has stalled and that theCourt is largely content with the current shape

中文翻译：

---

Murr 诉威斯康星州和征收法的未来

大约一个世纪前，福尔摩斯大法官曾宣布，如果监管太过分，就会成为对财产的掠夺。从那以后，法官和学者一直在努力赋予这个测试意义。Murr v Wisconsin 是最高法院最近与这个问题搏斗的裁决。这个 2017 年的决定似乎有点沉睡，因为它缺乏戏剧性的事实或激动人心的言辞。但它实际上对业主的权利和政府监管权力的范围有着广泛的影响。穆尔发出了一个强烈信号，即由大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚 (Antonin Scalia) 领导的产权运动已经停滞，法院基本上对目前的格局感到满意