This Article analyzes the potential impact on government regulation of private property rights of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.¹ That case upheld mandatory Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) programs. While Brown ensures continued funding for legal services for low- and moderate-income persons, it is difficult to reconcile with the Court's existing property and takings doctrines. Furthermore, although the decision was a victory for regulators, much of Brown's analysis favors landowners in future regulatory takings cases.

The Article begins with an overview of IOLTA and the Brown case and then discusses why the case is important. It proceeds to analyze, in separate sections, various aspects of the Takings Clause²; whether there was a per se "taking" of property, what we should make of the Court's dicta on the Public Use Clause, and the Court's holding that there was no violation of the Just Compensation Clause. Finally, the Article discusses how Brown is apt to affect regulatory takings law in the future in environmental and other contexts.