Can the Government Come Onto Your Property Without a Warrant? Attorney Philip Ellison from @olcplc explains. Very important information.

Sunlight is not optional in Michigan. 🇺🇸 Delays. Excessive fees. Over-redactions. “No records” responses. We’ve seen it all — and we fight back. Learn more, see real results (including our big Tanton Papers win expanding public access), and submit your FOIA issue for review. 👉 michiganfoia.com #MichiganFOIA #Transparency #FOIA #OpenGovernment

🚨 Big Win for Michigan Bar & Restaurant Owners! If a state trooper, local law enforcement, or inspector demands your records without a warrant, you have rights. In Generis Entertainment v. Donley (Retro Rocks, Saginaw), we got the court to find Michigan’s warrantless liquor inspection scheme is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. No more punishing licensees for insisting on a warrant for criminal investigations. Watch the full explainer (2:48) 👇 Visit olcplc.com or nowarrant.com for help protecting your license & business. #MichiganBars #LiquorLicense #FourthAmendment #MLCC #SmallBusinessRights

I spoke with WCMU regarding the dismissal of the Vanderlaan case against a Michigan DNR officer. While the trial court dismissed the lawsuit, the larger constitutional questions are far from settled. The Fourth Amendment does not disappear at the property line simply because a government official labels an intrusion an "inspection" or claims authority under a regulatory program. Too often, courts treat property rights as second-class constitutional rights. They are not. The right to exclude others from private property is one of the oldest and most fundamental rights recognized in Anglo-American law. The appeal will now move forward, and a parallel challenge continues to examine whether decades-old doctrines have drifted too far from the Constitution's text and history. Read the article from WCMU: wcmu.org/local-regional-news… #PropertyRights #FourthAmendment #Michigan #Constitution

The decision in Pung v. Isabella County could be released at any moment. At its core, the case asks a simple constitutional question: When government takes a person's home to collect a tax debt, how much must it pay back? The Estate of Timothy Scott Pung asked the United States Supreme Court to enforce a principle older than the Republic itself: government may collect what is owed, but it may not take more than it is entitled to keep. The Court heard argument on February 25, 2026. #Pung #PropertyRights #TakingsClause #Constitution #SCOTUS

EGLE Director Phil Roos recently proclaimed that environmental enforcement is “essential” and that inspections are a “key tool.” The Constitution disagrees when government officials violate the Constitution. That’s why Outside Legal Counsel PLC has sued Director Roos in Satkowiak v. Roos, challenging unconstitutional government conduct and defending the principle that constitutional rights do not disappear at the property line. The Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments apply to everyone—including state agencies. #PropertyRights #FourthAmendment #CivilRights #Michigan

Today could be the day. Months ago, I stood before the United States Supreme Court and argued Pung v. Isabella County—a case about a simple constitutional principle: when government takes property, the Constitution requires just compensation. We are expecting a big decision. But whatever happens, it has been the honor of a lifetime to represent Michael Pung and his family to help bring this important property-rights issue before the Nation’s highest Court. Now we wait. #Pung #PropertyRights #TakingsClause #Constitution #SCOTUS #Michigan

h/t @Anastasia_esq

Self-executing alert: CA11 agrees to consider Fulton en banc to answer the question: do you need Congress' ok to sue for just compensation for a taking? A split panel said no, but now the entire court will rehear the case. Here's the order: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opin… Here's the 2-1 panel opinion: inversecondemnation.com/2025… This was also the subject of a Harv L Rev Note: inversecondemnation.com/2026…

Cameras in the courtroom make for better prepared lawyers and judges, says a former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court should listen to him. bit.ly/4tviObQ

The decision is coming soon in Pung v. Isabella County. There was no mistake here. The government is intentionally taking people’s homes, selling them for a fraction of their worth, and wiping out years of built-up equity without a second thought. That’s not an error. That’s the system. And it’s exactly what the Constitution forbids.

MLive is covering our case today. The Pung family lost a $200,000 home over a $2,242 tax bill that should never have been issued in the first place. Isabella County foreclosed, sold the home for a fraction of its value, and kept the equity. The family spent a decade fighting to get it back. On February 25, 2026, I stood before the United States Supreme Court and argued that what Isabella County did violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. The Constitution does not allow the government to seize a family’s life savings over a disputed tax bill — and pocket the difference. The opinion is expected soon. 📰 Read the MLive story: mlive.com/news/2026/04/michi…

Michigan quietly joined the growing number of states adopting meaningful anti-SLAPP protections with the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), effective March 24, 2026. This is not a minor procedural tweak. It changes litigation leverage. Early dismissal, a stay of discovery, and mandatory fee-shifting reframe the economics of speech-based claims. Weak claims are no longer just defensible—they’re dangerous to bring. For practitioners, the takeaway is simple: plead carefully, and think twice before using litigation as a tool to silence public participation. The First Amendment just picked up real enforcement teeth in Michigan.

It Is Not An April Fool’s Day Joke; Federal Court Orders Independence Bridge Class Action May Proceed Forward - olcplc.com/public/media?1775…

Can the government enter your property without a warrant just because it’s “an inspection”? My answer: No. We’ve proven it. olcplc.com/s/cp5wY The Constitution draws the line. If it’s happening to you, I want to hear about it. NoWarrant.com #FourthAmendment

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Olivier v. City of Brandon makes clear that people can go to court to stop unconstitutional laws from being enforced in the future—even if they were already convicted under those laws in the past. Governments have long tried to end court challenges by misconstruing the “Heck bar.” For the kinds of cases that OLC handles, this decision greatly strengthens the ability to bring forward-looking lawsuits aimed at fixing bad policies instead of just undoing past harm. It allows lawyers to focus on stopping future enforcement of unconstitutional laws—protecting not just one client, but everyone affected by the same rule. Practically, that means more opportunities to challenge local ordinances, policing practices, or government restrictions before they cause repeated harm, which raises both the impact and visibility of this type of legal work.