Environmental law

Subscribe to Environmental law via RSS

Here are the latest filings in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr. 22, 2010). In that case, the property owners are asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), which held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the ICA supporting the property owners, and recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court – see below].

In Act 73, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land. The ICA held that the Act was a taking of accreted land…

Continue Reading Final Briefs In In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Is “Future” Accretion A Present Property Interest?

SCOTUSblog has listed Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 as a “petition to watch” for the Court’s conference today.

May 17, 2010 Update: cert. denied.

In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v.  Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a littoral owner was liable for trespass in waters held by the federal government for the benefit of the Lummi Nation, and for violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act formaintaining a “shore defense structure.” The structure was built onprivate fast (dry) land, but the shoreline eventually eroded up to it.

In the opinion, detailed in this post, the Ninth Circuit held that “both the tideland owner and the upland owner have a right to anambulatory boundary, and each has a vested right in the potential…

Continue Reading Petition To Watch: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?

Yesterday, we filed this motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae and a copy of the proposed brief in support of the application for writ of certiorari which asks the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).

In Maunalua Bay, the ICA held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. In the Act, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land.

The ICA, however, held that the Act was a taking only of existing accreted land, but was not a taking of what the ICA called “future accretions.” The court held that because “future” accretion might…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: “Future” Accretion Is A Present Property Interest

The property owners have filed an application for a writ of certiorari asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners in the ICA, available here, and will be submitting a motion for leave to file an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to accept the application for cert.

In its opinion, the ICA held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. In the Act, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land. The ICA held that the Act was a taking of existing accreted land, but…

Continue Reading Cert Application In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Legislative Reassignment To The State Of The Right To Future Accretion Is A Taking

At its upcoming April 30, 2010 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the cert petition in a case we’ve been following since it was decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 09-766 (cert. petition filed Dec. 28, 2009), the Court is presented with the following Questions Presented:

1.  Are private contracts property protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution?

2.  Assuming that private contracts are property protected by the Takings Clause, is the federal government liable for regulatory as well as appropriative takings of private contracts?

The CFC and the Federal Circuit both rejected the claim that the Secretary of the Interior’s designation of the waters surrounding Palmyra and Kingman Reef as National Wildlife Refuges and attendant commercial fishing ban was a taking of Palmyra Pacific Seafood’s exclusive licenses to operate commercial fish processing…

Continue Reading Was Ban On Palmyra Commercial Fishing A Taking Of The Right To Operate Seafood Processing Facilities?

Kuilima Resort Company has asked the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify its opinion in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010)), in which the court held that a supplemental environmental impact statement is required when a project’s context changes, even if the project itself has not. The motion is available here.

Under Rule 40 of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, no response can be filed unless the court asks for it, and the court has 10 days to act on the motion. If the court does not act within the 10 days, the motion is automatically rejected.Continue Reading Kuilima’s Motion For Reconsideration Of HAWSCT’s Supplemental EIS Opinion

Don’t feel like reading all 74 pages of the majority and concurring opinions in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010))? You’re in luck — here’s a summary.

[Disclosure: although I did not participate in this case, two of my Damon Key colleagues did. They represented a party in the circuit court and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. Consequently, I will not be adding commentary, just summarizing.]

For a summary of the arguments of the parties, first check out our oral argument preview part I and part II, then check out our live blog of the oral arguments.

Here are the briefs of the parties and amici, both at the cert stage, and in the Intermediate Court of Appeals:

…
Continue Reading Summary Of HAWSCT Opinion In The Turtle Bay/Kuilima Supplemental EIS Case: A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Duty To Supplement

This just in: the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu). In short, the court held that a supplemental environmental impact statement is required when a project’s context changes, even if the project itself has not. The court’s opinion, authored by Chief Justice Moon, is here. We blogged about this case and the ICA’s decision here.

More, after a chance to read the 76 pages of the majority and concurring opinions.Continue Reading Turtle Bay/Kuilima Supplemental EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?

When one lawyer writes that another is “my friend and colleague,” watch out: what follows may not be exactly friendly or collegial. For legal academics, the rule is even more pronounced when the friend-and-colleague’s name shows up in the title of an article.

In that vein, we bring you the latest chapter in the ongoing debate about “background principles” in regulatory takings analysis. In Background Principles, Takings, and Libertarian Property: A Response to Professor Huffman (posted on SSRN here), lawprofs Michael C. Blumm and J.B. Ruhl respond to Professor James Huffman’s critique of their work.

A short refresher. The “background principles” issue was spawned by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003 (1995), the case in which the Court held that a regulation takes property when it deprives a property owner of “economically beneficial or productive use of land,” even if the government’s reasons for enacting…

Continue Reading Be Careful Of Lawprofs Bearing Praise: Another Chapter In The “Background Principles” Debate

Courtesy of the New York Times is the backstory of Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). This, of course, is the “judicial takings” case that was argued in the Supreme Court last December, and is now awaiting disposition (our summary page contains links to the briefs — including the amicus brief we filed — and other case materials).

And when the Times goes back, it really goes back:

The sands found Destin first. They started off eons ago, from the Appalachian Mountains, washing their way down the rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Winnowed to pure, hardy quartz, the sediment moved with the gulf’s currents and gathered into the necklace of narrow barrier islands that buffer Florida’s Panhandle. Time and tides refined the sand into a soft, sun-bleached powder. By the 1830s, when a Yankee…

Continue Reading Behind The Music: Stop The Beach Renourishment And Judicial Takings