Law Commons^™

Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This commentary reviews and analyzes Justice John Paul Stevens's role in shaping the Court's views on the takings issue in land use regulation.

How Scary Is "Stop The Beach Renourishment"?, Roger Bernhardt

Publications

This article reviews Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Envt’l Protection where four Justices announced a judicial decision could, under the right circumstances, by itself constitute a taking of a litigant’s property, and applies that rule to existing California Supreme Court cases on 1) the implied warranty of habitability, 2) running covenants, 3) common enemy surface water, 4) public beach access, and 5) deeds of trust and the one-action rule.

Trout Of Bounds: The Effects Of The Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals’ Incorrect Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis In Casitas Municipal Water District V. United States, Raymond Dake

Raymond Dake

Abstract: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Castias Municipal Water District v. United States to apply a physical takings analysis to the partial interference of the water district’s water rights by the government in order to protect the steelhead trout through enforcement of the Endanger Species Act (“ESA”) is incorrect, plain and simple. Instead, I argue for the use of a regulatory takings analysis for partial takings of rights to use water under the Penn Central Test. The Casitas Court’s ruling misapplies California water law, disregards U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Tahoe-Sierra, ignores underlying theory and policy to …

Slides: Second Thoughts About The Antiquities Act: Does The Process For Public Land Decisionmaking Have An Ethical Dimension?, James R. Rasband

The Past, Present, and Future of Our Public Lands: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Public Land Law Review Commission’s Report, One Third of the Nation’s Land (Martz Summer Conference, June 2-4)

Presenter: James R. Rasband, Dean of the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University (Provo, UT)

32 slides

Climate Adaptation And The Fifth Amendment To The United States Constitution: How Do Adaptation Strategies Impact Regulatory Takings Claims?, Chad J. Mcguire

Chad J McGuire

Physical Takings, Regulatory Takings, And Water Rights, Josh Patashnik

Josh Patashnik

Alleged takings of property are divided into two broad categories: physical takings claims, which are categorically subject to compensation, and regulatory takings claims, which are analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test and rarely result in compensation being paid. This Article addresses the question of whether alleged takings of water rights should be treated as physical or regulatory takings. It is an increasingly salient question in the West, where growing conflict between federal environmental laws and appropriative water rights has resulted in a proliferation of takings claims over the past decade. Because whether a claim is analyzed as a physical …

Background Principles, Takings, And Libertarian Property: A Response To Professor Huffman, Michael C. Blumm, J.B. Ruhl

Michael Blumm

One of the principal, if unexpected, results of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission is the rise of background principles of property and nuisance law as a categorical defense to takings claims. Our writings on the background principles defense have provoked Professor Huffman, a devoted advocate for an expanded use of regulatory takings to protect landowner development rights, to mistakenly charge us with arguing for the use of common law principles to circumvent the rule of law, Supreme Court intent, and the takings clause. Actually, ours was not a normative brief at all, but …

Civilians In Cyberwarfare: Casualties, Susan W. Brenner, Leo L. Clarke

Susan Brenner

This article is a sequel to Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts, to be published by the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Conscripts addresses the essential role of civilians as participants in cyberwarfare. Here, we explore the potential losses cyberwarfare might cause to civilian entities, including multi-national corporations, utilities, universities and local governments. We explain why cyberwarfare presents unique risks and requires unique executive responses. We also analyze how civilians should manage specific legal liability, political and reputational risks. Finally, we consider whether civilians can expect compensation if the federal government imposes new regulations, appropriates intellectual property, or even conscripts entire businesses …

Character Counts: The "Character Of The Government Action" In Regulatory Takings Actions, Michael E. Lewyn

Michael E Lewyn

The Supreme Court has held that when a government regulation reduces the value of property, and a property owner challenges the regulation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, courts should consider (1) the economic impact of the regulation upon the property owner, (2) the effect of such regulation upon the property owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, Lingle v. Chevron, held that courts must focus primarily on the severity of the burden that government imposes upon property owners. Many courts and commentators interpret this language to mean …

Background Principles, Takings, And Libertarian Property: A Reply To Professor Huffman, J.B. Ruhl, Michael C. Blumm

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

One of the principal, if unexpected, results of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in "Lucas v. South Carolina" Coastal Commission is the rise of background principles of property and nuisance law as a categorical defense to takings claims. Our writings on the background principles defense have provoked Professor Huffman, a devoted advocate for an expanded use of regulatory takings to protect landowner development rights, to mistakenly charge us with arguing for the use of common law principles to circumvent the rule of law, Supreme Court intent, and the takings clause. Actually, ours was not a normative brief at all, but …

The Wholesale Decommissioning Of Vacant Urban Neighborhoods: Smart Decline, Public-Purpose Takings, And The Legality Of Shrinking Cities, Ben Beckman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note is principally concerned with those takings that arise from the State's exercise of eminent domain, either directly or through the State's designee. To put a finer point on it, this Note addresses the distinction that property-rights advocates have developed to delegitimize certain types of takings. This distinction divides condemnations into disfavored-yet-legitimate takings-the direct-government-use and common-carrier takings-and ostensibly illegitimate public-purpose takings. The property-rights movement unequivocally places economic-development takings in the illegitimate category. The status of blight-remediation takings is ambiguous but tends toward legitimacy.

The Hidden Function Of Takings Compensation, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

To date, scholars have justified the constitutional mandate to pay compensation for takings of property on the intuitively appealing grounds that fairness demands recompensing aggrieved owners; on the basis of a belief that government that fails to pay will suffer from “fiscal illusion” and take excessively; or due to the need to neutralize politically powerful property owners who would otherwise foil socially beneficial projects. This Essay offers a new explanation of the role of takings compensation in ensuring good government. Inspired by public choice theory, we argue that takings compensation is intended to reduce the incentives for corruption by limiting …

Character Counts: The "Character Of The Government Action" In Regulatory Takings Actions, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court has held that when a government regulation reduces the value of property, and a property owner challenges the regulation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, courts should consider (1) the economic impact of the regulation upon the property owner, (2) the effect of such regulation upon the property owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, Lingle v. Chevron, held that courts must focus primarily on the severity of the burden that government imposes upon property owners. Many courts and commentators interpret this language to mean …