was the murrs' problem. the state of wisconsin treated them as a single lot and said you could not sell one of them. you could sell them both together, but you cannot sell them separately. they filed a takings claim which lost in the lower court. most in this audience will know that the takings clause prevents the taking of property without just compensation, and there are kinds.ferent one where the government just takes your property, and gives you compensation. the only case i ever litigated that was the subject of "the daily show." look at up. this case is different. wisconsin was not occupying the what was called a regulatory taking, when the government goes too far in limiting someone's ability to alienate or use his or her property that can functionally -- of the property. that was the claim, and it was the takings claim. analyticion, the key threshold question that was what itscourt -- rendered review, and it became the denominator question. what is the relevant unit of property for considering the ta

murr v. wisconsin is a property rights case. it actually breaks a street that property rights owners and property rights advocates have been taking these cases in the supreme court in recent cases. it involves land along the st. croix river in wisconsin. the state of wisconsin has enacted a series of regulations to preserve the river as a recreational and environmental resource. the murr family has long owned twoots along the river -- lots along the river, lots e and f, and they had a house on lot e. they decided they wanted to move that house and that would require an expenditure of money. they wanted to sell lot f in order to finance the moving and renovation of lot e. they could not do that because of environmental regulations the state of wisconsin had imposed. the state said one could not build or sell an individual lot, could not build on a lot more -- unless it was more than an acre. it had grandfathered in smaller lots that have been owned at the time the regulations were doctored in 1976, but there was the exception for

the the majority says the murres can still make full use use of the lots. but he rejected the way of getting there, that that analytical move the majority had made in terms of providing a multifactor ad hoc test had kind of -- could have a lot of bad consequences and lead to litigation unsernts down the road. and so chief justice roberts said we should look to the lot lines. that's an easily identifiable category under state law. and then he suggested they my find there wasn't even a taking that was the relevant unit. but he thought it important to lay thought out as an analytical marker. i think justice kenied, there are kind of competing impultss. he definitely has a he's opinion with conservatives on a lot of takings cases. he's a believer in federalism. sometimes cases like this one are painted at least as putting federal courts in kind of superintendents over local zonizon zoning decisions. that may be something he didn't want to see happen here. >>> you want to talk about the slant case? let's talk about it? . >> i think finally interesting facts. so

the majority presents a fair case that the murrs can make good use of both loss, -- both lots. but he rejected the majority's way of getting there. the chief and the other dissenters thought that analytical move that the majority had made in terms of adopting a multi factor ad hoc test in deciding the relevant unit of property that was taken had -- was outcome determinative and would have bad consequences in other cases and lead to a lot of litigation uncertainty down the road. chief justice roberts said we should just look to the lot lines. that is an easy, readily identifiable category under state law, and it may be they would find that there was not a taking, but he thought that was important to lie about -- to lay it out as an analytical marker. what explains justice kennedy's vote, with all justices, they are competing impulses. he has a property rights impulse, and he has been with other conservatives in a lot of takings cases, but he is a believer in federalism, and sometimes in taking cases like this one that are painted at least as putting federal courts over zoning de

president duterte's drug war has been described as mass murr. but he's proud of what his country is doing to counter the poverty-fuelled wave of drug addiction. a chinese tycoon funded this giant new rehabilitation center. an irony, some might say, given the role played by chinese gangs in the philippine drug trade. president duterte: i will not allow my country to sink like colombia. i will not stop until the last pusher, until the last drug lord is exterminated. that will be the rule of the day. reporter: 100,000 square meters of space for 10,000 addicts. but just 186 patients are being treated here. there's a serious doctor shortage. there are only 13 federal drug clinics, so local governments are at the forefront of the fight against drugs. in olongapo, the mayor has formerddicts building coffins provided to poor families who can't pay for funeral services. robert: since i began taking part in the mayor's project, i finally have work. it was good that i turned myself in. reporter: for many of the former addicts, this is the first time they'v