Law Commons^™

Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Blackmun Papers, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

The papers of the late Justice Harry A. Blackmun provide a remarkably rich archive that documents how the Court, for nearly a quarter century, handled environmental cases during a period crucial to the development of environmental law. This Article reviews highlights of what the Blackmun papers reveal about the U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of environmental cases during Justice Blackmun’s service on the Court from 1970 to 1994. The Article first examines what new light the Blackmun papers shed on some of the principal findings of the author’s October 1993 article Environmental Law in the Supreme Court: Highlights from the Marshall …

Avenal V. State: Takings And Damagings In Louisiana, John J. Costonis

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Twenty-Five Years Of The Substantial Advancement Doctrine Applied To Regulatory Takings: From Agins To Lingle V. Chevron, Larry Salzman

ExpressO

Beginning with Agins v. City of Tiburon, and continuing for 25 years, the United States Supreme Court has held that regulation effects a taking when it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Throughout this period, many have criticized this standard as “a return to Lochner,” opposed to the extreme deference accorded economic and property regulation since the New Deal.

A careful review of cases reveals, however, that the “substantial advancement” doctrine is not simply a means-ends review of the efficacy of economic legislation. Rather, the doctrine was initially conceived, and has been applied, as a cause-effect test to ensure …

“Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood!”: Rediscovering The Penn Central And Mathews V. Eldridge Frameworks, Gary Lawson, Katharine A. Ferguson, Guillermo Montero

ExpressO

The manuscript re-examines the origins and purposes of two of the most misunderstood constructs in modern legal doctrine: the so-called Penn-Central and Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor tests. We say “so-called,” because neither case actually invented a three-factor test. Penn Central set forth a framework involving two factors that later cases (unwisely, in our view) expanded to three, and the framework in Mathews was initially crafted by litigators in the Solicitor General’s office in order to resolve the specific issue facing the Court in that case. More significantly, neither Penn Central nor Mathews purported to set forth a methodology for deciding …

'Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood!': Rediscovering The Mathews V. Eldridge And Penn Central Frameworks, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Mathews v. Eldridge, which addresses the procedures that must be provided for deprivations of life, liberty, or property under the Due Process Clauses, and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, which guides inquiry into when governmental regulations rise to the level of takings of property that require just compensation, are decisions with near-canonical status. Mathews and Penn Central have some noteworthy parallels. Each decision is widely regarded as prescribing a three-factor test for resolving questions that arise under its respective domain. Each decision is almost universally decried as unworkable, incomplete, subjective, and incapable of consistent application. And …

Takings Law In The Aftermath Of Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council: Does The Background Principles Exception Clarify Or Complicate Regulatory Takings Law, Christie Olsson

Santa Clara Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …