Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Do regulations that exist at the time that a property owner purchases his land negate any expectation that he will be able to use the land productively? Not according to this amici brief, filed today in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petititon filed June 5, 2013).

The cert petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in which the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The amici brief, filed by the National Federationof Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, the Cato Institute, and the Chapman Center for Constitutional Jurisprdence poses the Question Presented this way:

In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In “Investment-Backed Expectations” Case: Are Most Takings Claims Snuffed Out At Transfer Of Title?

Some things are constant: the speed of light, the sun rises in the east. And Professor John Echeverria, the well-known environmental lawprof, has never met a taking he’s liked.

Even if that means disagreeing in one takings case with Justice Ginsburg writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, the unanimous Court in another takings case, or, as in his op-ed in today’s New York Times, “A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development,” it means arguing that the Court’s ruling in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District, No. 11-1147 (June 25, 2013) says what it doesn’t necessarily say.

The op-ed merits careful reading.

First, he argues that “[t]he district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project’s…

Continue Reading Surprise! Environmental Lawprof Dislikes Koontz

Well, the hammer finally dropped and the Supreme Court today issued its opinion in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013). The opinion comes out on the next-to-last day of the Term presumably because — unlike the earlier two takings cases — Koontz was not unanimous, but was what one colleague referred to as a “classic” split in the Justices: the Chief, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas joining the opinion authored by Justice Alito, with the Court’s liberal wing siding at least partially with the government.

So before tomorrow’s rulings on the same-sex marriage issue suck all the air out of the room, here are our thoughts on Koontz:

  • All nine Justices agree that a property owner need not accept a permit which is subject to conditions she believes are unconstitutional in order to challenge it. This is a remarkable shift in tone

…
Continue Reading Exactions: Supreme Court Right On The Money

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt District, No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), holding that the nexus and proportionality standards apply to government demands for money as well as land, and that a property owner need not accept the permit in order to challenge it.

Opinion here. This is the third and final takings case the Court considered this term, which asked whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of Mr. Koontz.

Here’s our thoughts on the oral arguments. More, once we have a chance to digest the opinions in detail.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, No. 1101447 (June 25, 2013)

…
Continue Reading SCOTUS On Exactions: Nollan/Dolan Apply

Mostly mising from all the anticipation over the Supreme Court’s “blockbuster” cases on same sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action, is the Court’s third takings decision of the term, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. Professor Ilya Somin primes the pump in this post, “Still Waiting for the Koontz Decision,” which includes links to other prognostications, including an interesting (possible) insight from lawprof Josh Blackman.

We’re also in the final planning stages for the July 12, 2013 ABA webinar on Koontz and Horne, “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne.” Make plans and join us for a discussion of these cases by our panel of expert scholars (Professors David Callies [Hawaii] and Michael McConnell [Stanford, also arguing counsel in Horne]), and practitioners (my State and Local Government Law Section colleagues Andy Gowder and Michael Kamprath). Continue Reading Waiting For Koontz

The Supreme Court has denied cert in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might allow the use of the water he alleges was taken. The issue in the case was whether it is a taking for the government to cut off physical access to a property owner’s vested right to use water. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $4.2 million in just compensation for the taking of Hage’s water rights. But the Federal Circuit reversed because the case was not ripe.

In a different phase of the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada recently held that the…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Western Water Rights Case

Yesterday, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013), a fascinating case involving the nature of Torrens title. In doing so, the court rebuffed the State of Hawaii’s attempted land grab, which would have undermined the sanctity of all Land Court titles, and, in a sense, the very notion of property rights and settled expectations. The ICA also rejected the State’s attempt to transform the “public trust” doctrine into a physical servitude that would have allowed the State to flood land without consequence.

Before we go further, this disclosure: we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation in the case in support of the property owner.

Torrens (Land Court) Title

With that out of the way, some background. Hawaii is one of the few remaining states retaining…

Continue Reading HAWICA Thwarts State’s Massive Land Grab

Mark your calendars for July 12, 2013 for our CLE teleconference on “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne,” sponsored by the ABA’s State and Local Government Law Section. We’ll start at 1:00 pm ET (Noon CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT, 7:00 am HT). Here’s the program description:

In the 2012term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on two regulatory takings cases,Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, and Horne v. U.S.Department of Agriculture. Join our panel of legal scholars and expertpractitioners for the first analysis of these cases, and how the Court’srulings on land use exactions (Koontz), and jurisdiction (Horne) will impactyour practice.

We’ve assembled a great faculty with a mix of expert scholars and practitioners: Professor Michael McConnell (arguing counsel in Horne), Professor David Callies, W. Andrew Gowder, and…

Continue Reading Upcoming ABA CLE: “Supreme Court Takings – A First Look At Koontz And Horne”

Here’s the cert petition filed last week which asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Mehaffy v. United States (Dec. 10, 2012). In that case, the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The Questions Presented give some additional background:

In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) entered into an agreement that gave the Petitioner‘s predecessor in interest, Nomikano, Inc., the right to fill certain wetlands on its property. In exchange, the government obtained a flowage easement over a portion of the property. Petitioner was Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikano and involved in those negotiations. In 2000, Petitioner obtained the property. Subsequently, in 2006, he sought a permit from the Corps…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Do Pre-Purchase Regulations Negate A Property Owner’s Expectations?

Having now had a chance to review in detail the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (June 10, 2013), we were struck by how at least one of the reactions to the decision painted it as a “narrow, specialized ruling” that’s more of a one-off, than a case with lasting impact. Maybe this is a natural result of the case being argued last of the three takings cases the Court considered this term. Or because it involves what Justice Kagan characterized at oral arguments as possibly “the world’s most outdated law.” Or because there are several very high-profile cases on the Court’s docket that everyone’s anticipating. Or maybe just because it’s about raisins.

California raisins. 

But we respectfully dissent from the viewpoint that sees Horne as the least important and interesting of the 2013 Takings trilogy, or…

Continue Reading Unanimous SCOTUS: There’s More To The Takings Clause Than Just “Just Compensation”