Molly Brady's Avatar

Molly Brady

@maureenebrady.com

Professor @ Harvard Law writing on property institutions, land use, private law, and eminent domain. Section 3 for life. Always half-joking. (AKA Maureen.)

5,873
Followers
376
Following
1,350
Posts
27.05.2023
Joined
Posts Following

Latest posts by Molly Brady @maureenebrady.com

❤️ this

06.03.2026 18:07 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

lol did not see this beforehand

01.03.2026 01:59 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Post image

Was this made specifically for me? Can the rest of you see this or is this the end

01.03.2026 01:22 👍 4 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

Opus 4 is going to start a substack

26.02.2026 12:20 👍 9 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

Where do I pick up

18.02.2026 18:20 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

One of my favorite early 20th century cases attempts to ban a billboard bc “criminals hide behind them.” Same vibe

09.02.2026 12:55 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

Hotel NIMBY lady is back, this time with facts—from a study of TripAdvisor reviews in Atlanta and New Orleans, superb comps for my MA suburb. Up next, I’ll be studying the rise of vampire-human relationships using Goodreads

09.02.2026 12:36 👍 9 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0

Meteor hitting earth; plague; Molly Brady; Eiffel Tower fell

04.02.2026 13:07 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Post image

I’d really like to meet the legend responsible for putting together the Harvard Gazette subject lines every morning

04.02.2026 12:42 👍 16 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0

(I fear that point = forever but bless)

30.01.2026 14:32 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Preview
The Path Not Taken in Federal Takings Law Debates from 19th century state conventions explain why some constitutions allow takings for "private use."

NEW: Kelo may be settled, but courts continue to grapple w/ limits on eminent domain. Drawing on debates from 19th century state conventions, @maureenebrady.com shows how necessity historically structured private-use takings, offering a framework for thinking about public use today & going forward.

29.01.2026 18:12 👍 5 🔁 4 💬 0 📌 0
Preview
More Historical Evidence Showing that the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment Does Not Allow Takings that Transfer Property to Private Parties NA The Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), held that private "economic development" is…

And thanks to @ilyasomin.bsky.social for this write-up over at @reason.com! reason.com/volokh/2026/...

29.01.2026 15:32 👍 5 🔁 3 💬 0 📌 0
Preview
The Path Not Taken in Federal Takings Law Debates from 19th century state conventions explain why some constitutions allow takings for "private use."

Caught in the snowday/first day of teaching backlog:

Thanks to @statecourtreport.org at @brennancenter.org for this chance to discuss some of my research on the "private-use" takings provisions in state constitutions, statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...;

29.01.2026 15:32 👍 5 🔁 3 💬 1 📌 0

First default wins. (As I point out it’s not even clear at what points in history that’s been a majority default rule, and it’s a bare majority today…)

24.01.2026 14:48 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

Why 1877? No. There was an earlier NC law that requiring posting to ban hunters on your land at the courthouse AND 2 other places where public notice was ordinarily given. But I think the 1st “allowed-unless-posted-on-land” is Ohio. (I should dig further into it but someone was rushing to finish…)

24.01.2026 14:21 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

The default, btw, seems to date to 1877 🤪

24.01.2026 14:06 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0

My 4yo fell and split his head open at school. He asked for a popsicle, and the principal said “but your bump’s on the back of your head, popsicles are for bumps in your mouth.” He told her, “but my bones go all the way to the front.”

He enjoyed the popsicle and I’m very worried about my future

22.01.2026 12:33 👍 11 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

I think: (1) the Supreme Court's own decisions HAVE done this for 1st Am rights, e.g., no right to protest even on property held open to the public (Hudgens); and (2) Martin v. City of Struthers will get new life, which is harder but I think distinguishable because there was no opt-out.

20.01.2026 17:18 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

I think Martin v. city of Struthers is super interesting in this regard. But there, an owner had no way of permitting leaf-letters if desired.

20.01.2026 17:03 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

(The answer here is that a First Amendment law like this would be subject to means-ends scrutiny, which we can't do anymore here...)

20.01.2026 16:24 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Preview
a woman with dreadlocks is standing in the woods with her eyes closed and her mouth open . ALT: a woman with dreadlocks is standing in the woods with her eyes closed and her mouth open .
20.01.2026 16:12 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0

Exactly.

20.01.2026 16:09 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

"Unenclosed land" is not PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC how do you people listen to supreme court arguments I'm going on mute

20.01.2026 15:57 👍 15 🔁 3 💬 3 📌 0

South Carolina and Louisiana both ALREADY HAVE THIS LAW!

20.01.2026 15:25 👍 5 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

"The state can't pass a law prohibiting you from bringing guns into people's private residences" is a WILDDDDDDDD hill to go up

20.01.2026 15:20 👍 9 🔁 1 💬 2 📌 0

I don't listen to a lot of arguments but...uh...the petitioners in Wolford just fell into like 368 problematic traps

20.01.2026 15:19 👍 5 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0

My teaching scaries dream of the semester has arrived: I showed up and @lessig.bsky.social (their con law teacher) had actually just done the exact same class, down to Pierson v. Post. I feigned a coughing attack to cover my panic

20.01.2026 11:31 👍 12 🔁 0 💬 3 📌 0

Aw shucks thanks Jake! Benefitted hugely from your work (but not yet from the blog post, which must’ve gone live as I downed my tenth large iced coffee to finish this)

20.01.2026 00:52 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Post image

In 2016, I wrote this mission statement at a seminar for new faculty at UVA. As true today as it was then! (And still on my bulletin board.)

19.01.2026 19:40 👍 10 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0

Definitely a verrrrry rough draft so reprimand me in private.

19.01.2026 16:49 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0