Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Blackman, J. (2026, September 20). Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/20/today-in-supreme-court-history-september-20-1968-7/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-20 · by Josh Blackman

Quick Summary

On September 20, 1968, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Company. This decision eventually led to the Supreme Court case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York in 1978, where the court ruled that the city's action did not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Takings Clause.
Written by AI on 2026-09-20, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

On September 20, 1968, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Company. This decision led to the landmark legal case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York in 1978, where the Supreme Court ruled that the city’s actions did not violate the Takings Clause, which protects property owners from government seizures without just compensation. The court's decision upheld New York City’s authority to preserve historical landmarks while balancing property rights and public interest.

Written for “Supreme Court Historical Dates” on 2026-11-01, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Supreme Court Historical Dates
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
2
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
0%
0 of 2 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-20 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1046 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Josh Blackman
84 article(s) here · 0 carrying a prediction
🔮 Today the law firm of Weil Gotshal announced that it would wind down.
2026-10-28 · assertive framing · Farewell to Weil
🔮 And her unwillingness to participate in any disciplinary proceedings suggests something is amiss.
🔮 Longtime readers will recall that I took mileage runs to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Sydney to make status at the end of the year.
2026-10-28 · assertive framing · 1,000,000 Miles on United
🔮 Let's hope that people across the media industry will take Josh Blackman's criticism to heart.
2026-10-27 · assertive framing · The Wall Street Journal Praises The Old Gray Lady
🔮 New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change.
2026-10-26 · assertive framing · Today in Supreme Court History: October 26, 1774
🔮 ] There have been many news reports suggesting that the United States Department of Justice may pursue denaturalization proceedings against Representative Ilhan Omar.
🔮 Nevertheless, the next two decades would vastly enlarge the president's powers as Congress' authority over the executive branch would be greatly diminished.
🔮 Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
🔮 The regulations for Freedmen schools in Texas provided that classes would begin at 9 A.M. and "[t]he morning Exercises will commence with either the singing of an appropriate hymn, or prayer, or the reading of the Scriptures."
🔮 Kyle asks: Well, I don't know how much coverage of the court you read, but you may not be surprised to learn that one light motif is that you are brooding figure.
Also by Josh Blackman
Farewell to Weil
2026-10-28 · Reason
1,000,000 Miles on United
2026-10-28 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 84 articles by Josh Blackman →

Topics

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission The Supreme Court the City of New York the Penn Central Transportation Co. the Takings Clause

Subjects

New York GPE · 1× Penn Central Transportation Co. ORG · 1× The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission ORG · 1× The Supreme Court ORG · 1× the City of New York GPE · 1× the Penn Central Transportation Co. ORG · 1×

Narrative

The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978).
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-20
2026-09-20 · Reason
Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968 · assertive framing

Claims (2 extracted, 0 hedged)

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Co. asserted
Commission → deny → effect
The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978). asserted
City → find → York
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support