I disagree with some of your synopses.

I think what you say is a "case on strategic grain reserve regulation" is Horn v. USDA. It concerns raisins, not grain. It concerns the ability of the Raisin Administrative Committee to take physical property in order to enforce regulations.

Writing for the majority, Roberts wrote (quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horne_v._Department_of_Agricul... ):

> Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers’ corn in the 1215 Magna Carta,[15] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties,[16] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay.[17] Chief Justice Roberts concluded that personal property has not been given any less protection than real property for at least 800 years and that the physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.

Previously, "the Ninth Circuit found that there had been no taking because the takings clause protects personal property, like raisins, less than real property."

Thus, while the case was a consequence of a regulatory decision, the holding establishes that personal property and real property have equal protections.

In your [1] you objected that you were only talking about "physical personal property", and not real estate or other forms of property. However, as you can see in the above quote, the taking of the raisins was the taking of personal property.

Thus, even if you take all the other cases away, there's still at least one case which fits your requirement.

Concerning your synopsis of Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, I do not see how you can summarize it as a case on environmental regulation.

The owners of beachfront property wanted to continue as owners of beachfront property and argued that the construction of a new public beach between their land and the water was the taking of part of their property right. The FL Supreme Court said there was no perpetual right for beachfront property to touch the water, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The owners also said that they had a "right to receive accretions to their property", that would be taken by the creation of the beach. Again, that Supreme Court found otherwise.

There is no mention of any environmental regulation in the 08–1151 brief.

In your [1] you assert that I somehow knew you were only talking about "physical personal property". Your leadup to it was: "actual property law ... who owns a physical object".

Black's Law, second edition, defines "property" as:

> Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude every one else from interfering with it.

and further distinguishes between absolute property, common property, literary property, personal property, private property, real property, and more. Private property, for example, is of a tangible nature, and includes houses and lands.

So I think you can forgive me for reading your description of "property" and "physical object" as to include private property such as real estate.

I still do not agree with the validity of your argument. Given the number of freedom of religion laws which have come before the Supreme Court in the last 10 years, does that mean that no one has a reasonably practical understanding of the freedom of religion?