Rights as property

New civil legislation shifts the balance of rights between parties and invariably worsens-either directly or implicitly-the outlook of one party. This Note examines instances where the Supreme Court has treated impairments to rights of action and defenses as a deprivation of property without due process and deduces the implicit framework the Court has used to determine when to treat rights as property. This tacit framework first considers whether rights are accrued and, second, analyzes the "nature" of the rights in question. Examining how the Court has engaged in this inquiry, however, reveals that it has favored explicitly defined rights in a way that conflicts with due process's purposes and that tends to disadvantage defendants. This Note proposes that the Court treat both implicit and explicit rights symmetrically in according them property status and that it recognize a property right in the substantive legal landscape upon, and only upon, accrual of rights.