Law Commons^™

Tending Gardens, Ploughing Fields, And The Unexamined Drift To Constructive Takings At Common Law, Douglas C. Harris

All Faculty Publications

Expropriation law in Canada has operated on the basis of two presumptions at common law: that compensation is owing for the compulsory acquisition of property unless specifically indicated otherwise by statute; and, that no compensation is owing for land use regulation unless specifically provided for by statute. In its decision in Annapolis Group Inc. v Halifax Regional Municipality, the Supreme Court of Canada abandoned the second presumption that compensation for land use regulation required a statutory foundation. The majority and dissent proceed on the unexamined foundation that there is a common law basis for compensation in claims for constructive takings …

Property Transitions, Michael A. Heller

Faculty Scholarship

Time plays a key role in this book. The last two chapters discussed two reasons why time matters to the life of property: over time, owners effect voluntary changes to property in order to carry out their life plans and the state imposes involuntary changes (from the individual owner’s perspective) in response to changing circumstances, shifting needs and wants, and revised public goals. For the state to function – and to remain justified on liberal principles – the government must have this ability to adjust ownership. However, state-initiated transitions to ownership – implemented through governments’ police and takings powers – …

The State Of Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court slightly expanded the range of circumstances involving conditional land use permits in which heightened judicial scrutiny is appropriate in a constitutional “exaction” takings case. In crafting a vision of regulators as strategic extortionists of private property interests, though, Koontz prompted many takings observers to predict that the case would provide momentum for a more significant expansion of such scrutiny in takings cases involving land use permit conditions moving forward, and perhaps even an extension into other regulatory contexts, as well.

Five years on, this Article evaluates the extent …

Property-As-Society, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

Modern regulatory takings disputes present a key battleground for competing conceptions of property. This Article offers the following account of the three leading theories: a libertarian view sees property as creating a sphere of individual freedom and control (property-as-liberty); a pecuniary view sees property as a tool of economic investment (property-as-investment); and a progressive view sees property as serving a wide range of evolving communal values that include, but are not limited to, those advanced under both the libertarian and pecuniary conceptions (property-as-society). Against this backdrop, the Article offers two contentions. First, on normative grounds, it asserts that the conception …

Murr-Ky Waters: How Murr V. Wisconsin Creates Uncertainty In Attempting To Answer The “Denominator Question”, Charles M. Kassir

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Non-Enforcement Takings, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

The non-enforcement of existing property laws is not logically separable from the issue of unfair and unjust state deprivations of property rights at which the Constitution's Takings Clause takes aim. This Article suggests, therefore, that takings law should police allocations resulting from non-enforcement decisions on the same "fairness and justice" grounds that it polices allocations resulting from decisions to enact and enforce new regulations. Rejecting the extant majority position that state decisions not to enforce existing property laws are categorically immune from takings liability is not to advocate that persons impacted by such decisions should be automatically or even regularly …

Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson

Articles

Federal law exerts a gravitational force on state actors, resulting in widespread conformity to federal law and doctrine at the state level. This has been well recognized in the literature, but scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon in the context of constitutional property. Traditionally, state takings jurisprudence—in both eminent domain and regulatory takings—has strongly gravitated towards the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine. This long history of federal-state convergence, however, was disrupted by the Court’s controversial public use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In the wake of Kelo, states resisted the Court’s validation of the …

Justice Scalia's Rule Of Law And Law Of Takings, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Journal Articles

This short essay reviews the regulatory takings legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia, evaluating both its impact on the Supreme Court's takings canon and its consistency with his stated jurisprudential principles.

The Environmental Limitations To Property Rights In Brazil And The United States Of America, Leonardo Munhoz

Dissertations & Theses

This thesis aims to comparatively analyze the legislative evolution that environmental protection has experienced in the Brazilian versus the American legal systems and their relationship with property rights.

Demonstrably, Brazil’s concern with the environment actually came into focus in the 1980s and it therefore received treatment within the Federal Constitution of 1988, as a diffuse right, contributing to better, stronger environmental protection.

Similarly, the protection of the environment in the American Constitution and its statutes as well as their enforcement and interpretation within the legal system are explored.

Of concern is the notion that environmental protection and third-generation rights consequently …

Judicial Takings: Musings On Stop The Beach, James E. Krier

Articles

Judicial takings weren’t much talked about until a few years ago, when the Stop the Beach case made them suddenly salient. The case arose from a Florida statute, enacted in 1961, that authorizes public restoration of eroded beaches by adding sand to widen them seaward. Under the statute, the state has title to any new dry land resulting from restored beaches, meaning that waterfront owners whose land had previously extended to the mean high-tide line end up with public beaches between their land and the water. This, the owners claimed, resulted in a taking of their property, more particularly their …

Exactions Creep, Lee Anne Fennell, Eduardo M. PeñAlver

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

How can the Constitution protect landowners from government exploitation without disabling the machinery that protects landowners from each other? The Supreme Court left this central question unanswered — and indeed unasked — in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. The Court’s exactions jurisprudence, set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, and now Koontz, requires the government to satisfy demanding criteria for certain bargains — or proposed bargains — implicating the use of land. Yet because virtually every restriction, fee, or tax associated with the ownership or use of land can be cast …

The Brooding Omnipresence Of Regulatory Takings: Urban Origins And Effects, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

This essay, written on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Fordham Urban Law Journal, discusses the urban settings for key regulatory takings decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, reviews the state of expert commentary before the rebirth of regulatory takings in the high court, explores the complex relationship between liberal justices and private property rights protection, reviews regulatory takings scholarship that has appeared in the pages of this journal, and closes with some thoughts about the future of urban regulatory takings

Strategies For Making Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Tools 'Takings-Proof', Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

While the costs of some Sea-Level Rise (SLR) adaptation tools are undeniably daunting, the American legal system poses an additional, potentially budget-busting impediment — the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Officials at all governmental strata and from all three branches should keep the demands made by the Takings Clause, as interpreted by the judiciary, in mind as they choose tools from the diverse SLR-adaptation toolbox, as they justify their choices to the electorate and other constituencies, as they put those tools to use, and as they defend that use from litigants claiming abuse. This …

Failed Exactions, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

This symposium essay considers the doctrinal quandary created by 'failed exactions' - regulatory conditions on property development that government agencies contemplate but that are never finalized or enforced, usually because the property owner rejects them. A narrow but conceptually challenging issue to the relationship between the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and regulatory takings law, failed exactions could prove profoundly unsettling to current land use practices. A decade ago, the issue of whether failed exactions deserve heightened scrutiny prompted Justice Scalia to issue a dissent from a denial of petition for certiorari in which he stated, somewhat tentatively, that an extortionate demand …

Property Rights, The "Gang Of Four" & The Fifth Vote: Stop The Beach From Renourishment, Inc. V. Florida Department Of Environmental Protection (U.S. Supreme Court 2010), Garrett Power

Faculty Scholarship

In 2010 The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (SBR v. Fla. EPA). Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment of the Court. All Justices agreed that Florida had not violated the Takings Clause of the Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. But then in a plurality opinion Justice Scalia joined by the Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito proposed profound changes in the law of “regulatory takings.” As the spokesman for the Court’s property rights absolutists Scalia advanced two novel legal propositions. First he argued that federal courts …

Why Lingle Is Half Right, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a highly unusual decision in that it repudiated a legal doctrine that the Supreme Court itself had created. The Court was able to do this without overruling any prior decision because the repudiated doctrine-which condemned as a taking any regulation of property that fails to "substantially advance legitimate state interests" – had taken hold in the lower courts but had never been applied by the Court itself in support of a judgment. Lingle is also unusual in that there is no indication that the Court was motivated to jettison the doctrine because it was …

The Stubborn Incoherence Of Regulatory Takings, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. was met with restrained but largely appreciative notice by commentators. Lingle declared that the Takings Clause affirmatively protects property owners by awarding them compensation for regulations that impose the functional equivalent of a condemnation of their property. The regulatory takings doctrine thus differs from the substantive due process doctrine, which instead reviews the validity of a regulation and offers as its remedy the invalidation of an offending government action. Clearing the underbrush that had grown in nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent, the Court appeared to have made …

"No Taking Without A Touching?" Questions From An Armchair Originalist, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper is an invited contribution to the Bernard Siegan Memorial Conference on Economic Liberties, Property Rights, and the Original Meaning of the Constitution at the University of San Diego School of Law. The paper poses three questions about the historical evidence used to support the dominant academic view that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, as originally understood, extended only to physical appropriations or invasions of private property. First, the paper questions the relevance of state and local regulatory practices to the pre-incorporation understanding of the Takings Clause. Second, the paper expresses concern about the use of state-court cases decided …

The New Nuisance: An Antidote To Wetland Loss, Sprawl, And Global Warming, Christine A. Klein

UF Law Faculty Publications

Marking the fifteenth anniversary of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council -- the modern U.S. Supreme Court's seminal regulatory takings decision -- this Article surveys Lucas's impact upon regulations that restrict wetland filling, sprawling development, and the emission of greenhouse gases. The Lucas Court set forth a new categorical rule of governmental liability for regulations that prohibit all economically beneficial use of land, but also established a new defense that draws upon the states' common law of nuisance and property. Unexpectedly, that defense has taken on a life of its own -- forming what this Article calls the new …

Political Institutions, Judicial Review, And Private Property: A Comparative Institutional Analysis, Daniel H. Cole

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Since Madison, jurists of all ideological stripes have more or less casually presumed that constitutional judicial review is absolutely necessary to protect private property rights against over-regulation by political bodies. During the twentieth century, this presumption led directly to the institution of regulatory takings doctrine.

Recently, the economist William Fischel and the legal scholar Neil Komesar have raised important questions about, respectively, the utility and the sufficiency of constitutional judicial review for protecting private property. This article supports their arguments with theoretical and historical evidence that constitutional judicial review (1) is not strictly necessary for protecting private property rights, and …

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

The regulatory takings doctrine, the Supreme Court declared in Lingle v. Chevron, concerns the effects of a regulation on the incidents of property ownership. It serves as a constitutional protection against regulations that impose the functional equivalent to a classic taking of private property (an appropriation by the state or an ouster), and it requires compensation for owners who are subject to such regulations. Just as significant as declaring what the regulatory takings doctrine is, theCourt in Lingle also declared what it is not: it is not a judicial check onthe validity or reasonableness of a regulation that …

Review Of Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics And Politics, By William A. Fischel, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Regulatory Takings: law, Economics and Politics by William A. Fischel (1997).

William Fischel's Regulatory Takings confronts one of the most difficult and significant questions in constitutional law: how should courts determine which government regulations run afoul of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to provide compensation when it takes private property? Broadly read, the clause would bar government regulations with redistributive consequences, thus rendering the modern regulatory state unconstitutional. This reading, championed by Professor Richard Epstein, has achieved great prominence in academic and political debates, but the vast preponderance of judges and …

The Takings-Puzzle Puzzle, James E. Krier

Articles

My aim here is to unpack the regulatory takings problem in a way that suggests why it is intractable. The idea is to reveal some of the different types of ambiguity necessarily entailed in takings cases. Seeing these ambiguities, we readily can understand why the doctrine in this area is so confused and confusing; why there is, in short, a "takings puzzle." To my mind, it is much more difficult to understand why anyone would expect matters to be otherwise. This oddity I call the "takings-puzzle puzzle."

Ten Years Of Takings, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No area of property law has been more controversial in the past decade than takings. No aspect of constitutional law more sharply poses the dilemma about the legitimate powers of the regulatory state than the just compensation question. No question concerning constitutional property is more intractable than what sorts of government regulatory actions constitute uncompensated "takings" of private property.

Limitations of space, not to mention my own ambivalence about many of the issues, prevent me from developing a complete normative theory of the proper scope of the Takings Clause. My aim here is vastly more modest: to outline the basic …

Agenda: Biodiversity Protection: Implementation And Reform Of The Endangered Species Act, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Biodiversity Protection: Implementation and Reform of the Endangered Species Act (Summer Conference, June 9-12)

Conference organizers and/or faculty included University of Colorado School of Law professors Betsy Rieke, David H. Getches, Michael A. Gheleta and Charles F. Wilkinson.

All across the country--in Congress, in state legislatures and in urban and rural communities--people are discussing why we should or should not protect biodiversity and how best to do so. Since the Endangered Species Act is up for reauthorization, a variety of reform proposals are being debated. Speakers--including natural resource scholars, experts from the private and nonprofit sectors, and government officials--will examine the rationale for biodiversity protection, the legal framework of the Endangered Species Act, and …

Mining Regulation(S) And Takings, Lawrence G. Mcbride

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

12 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Property Rights And Public Resources, Mark L. Pollot

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

4 pages.

Agenda: Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Byron R. White Center For The Study Of American Constitutional Law

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

Sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center and the Byron R. White Center for American Constitutional Study.

Conference organizers, faculty and/or moderators included University of Colorado School of Law professors David H. Getches, Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Gene R. Nichol, Jr. and Mark Squillace.

Governmental regulation for environmental protection and other important public purposes can affect the manner in which land and natural resources are developed and used. The U.S. constitution (and most state constitutions) prohibit the government from "taking" property without payment of compensation. Originally intended to apply to situations where the government physically seized private property …

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 …

Eminent Domain (Update), James E. Krier

Book Chapters

One of the most challenging and enduring puzzles in American constitutional law is how one distinguishes a compensable taking of power from a legitimate and noncompensable exercise of the police power. To suggest the Supreme Court’s approach to the question, Harry N. Scheiber, author of the Encyclopedia’s principal article on eminent domain, looked back and away from the Court to Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw of Massachusetts.