Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Property Law and Real Estate
Regulatory Takings And Wetland Protection In The Post-Lucas Era, Richard C. Ausness
Regulatory Takings And Wetland Protection In The Post-Lucas Era, Richard C. Ausness
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In June 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. The case involved a claim for compensation against the State of South Carolina by a landowner who was prohibited from placing structures on two of his beachfront lots. The Court declared that the landowners must be compensated when government regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial or productive uses of their property unless the proscribed uses were not permitted as part of their original titles.
Although some legal commentators have praised the Lucas decision, others have strongly condemned it. A common criticism of Lucas …
Wild Dunes And Serbonian Bogs: The Impact Of The Lucas Decision On Shoreline Protection Programs, Richard C. Ausness
Wild Dunes And Serbonian Bogs: The Impact Of The Lucas Decision On Shoreline Protection Programs, Richard C. Ausness
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United Supreme Court was forced once again to delve into the law of regulatory takings. This experience is seldom a pleasant one. Echoing the poet John Milton, an exasperated state court judge once described takings law as a “Serbonian Bog.” Unfortunately, the takings doctrine is only slightly more comprehensible after the Lucas decision than it was before. Nevertheless, progress in this area, however modest, deserves praise, and the Court is to be commended for clarifying one aspect of takings jurisprudence. As a result of Lucas a “categorical rule” has been announced …
Congressional Discretion Under The Property Clause, Eugene R. Gaetke
Congressional Discretion Under The Property Clause, Eugene R. Gaetke
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
The property clause of article IV grants Congress the authority to regulate federal lands. In referring to that authority, the Supreme Court has observed that “the power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.”
The simplicity of the Court's statement is appealing. Its implications, however, are troubling, especially for those states in which a substantial amount of federal property exists. If the property clause power of Congress is "without limitations," the power of some states over a considerable portion of the land within their boundaries is severely limited. For those states, an unlimited property clause power …