Shoreline | CZMA

Subscribe to Shoreline | CZMA via RSS

Things I never thought I would see in a Supreme Court opinion include the riddle “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood,” but there it is, in black and white on page 11 of Justice Scalia’s opinion today in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009):

One cannot know whether a takings claim is invalid with-out knowing what standard it has failed to meet. Which means that JUSTICE BREYER must either (a) grapple with the artificial question of what would constitute a judicial taking if there were such a thing as a judicial taking (reminiscent of the perplexing question how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?), or (b) answer in the negative what he considers to be the “unnecessary” constitutional question whether there is…

Continue Reading Scalia, J.: “How Much Wood Would A Woodchuck Chuck If A Woodchuck…”

Today, by a 3-2 vote, the Hawaii Supreme Court declined 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 filed an amicus brief urging the Hawaii Supreme Court to accept certiorari.

In Act 73, the Hawaii 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 which existed in 2003 when the Act was adopted, but that it  was not a taking of what the ICA called “future accretions.”

The court…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Denies Cert In Beach Accretion Case

Here’s the latest development in the reconsideration process in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case, Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010).

As we noted earlier, Kuilima Resort Company filed a motion asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify its opinion in the case. Recently, a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Kuilima’s motion for reconsideration was filed by the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii and a whole bunch of others (too numerous to list, but read the brief if you need to know who they are).

The motion argues:

Movants seek to file an amicus curiae brief to apprise the Court of important legal issues and public interests at stake in this precedent-setting case of first impression including, but are not limited to, how:

1. The Court Opinion, unless reconsidered or clarified…

Continue Reading Another Brief Seeking Reconsideration Of HAWSCT’s Kuilima/Turtle Bay Supplemental EIS Opinion

A couple of days ago, we posted “Final Briefs In Hawaii Beach Takings Case: Is ‘Future’ Accretion A Present Property Interest?” with what we thought was a complete set of the merits and amicus briefs filed in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr. 22, 2010).

Turns out we missed one set, the amicus brief of Hawaii’s Thousand Friends which urges the Hawaii Supreme Court not to accept the application for a writ of certiorari filed by the property owners, and the property owners’ brief responding to HTF’s brief.

Here they are:

[Our usual disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the Intermediate Court of Appeals supporting the property owners, and recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court].

Unless there is another…

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

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

The Solicitor General has filed the federal government’s Brief in Opposition in Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 (cert. petition filed Jan. 7, 2010) (Supreme Court docket entry here).

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…

Continue Reading Federal Government’s Brief In Opposition In Erosion Case: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?

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?