1. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, (1992)
2. Facts: Lucas bought some beachfront property in 1986 for $975,000, intending to build single-family residences on it. At the time he bought is, a coastal zone management statute was in effect which regulated the use of certain “critical areas” in the beachfront areas, but Lucas’ property was not a “critical area.” However, in 1988, the state passed another beachfront management act which completely forbade construction seaward of a “baseline” marked by the highest points of erosion in the last 40 years. Unfortunately, Lucas property was seaward of the baseline, and so he could not build his residential houses on it.
3. Procedural Posture: Lucas brought an action for compensation, claiming that regardless of whether the legislature had acted legitimately in furtherance of some police power objective, he was entitled to compensation. The trial court agreed, finding that the statute deprived Lucas of “any reasonable economic use of the lots...rendering them valueless.” The Supreme Court of Carolina reversed, finding that when a regulation respecting the use of property is designed “to prevent serious public harm”, no compensation is owing regardless of the regulations effect on the property’s value.
4. Issue: Whether the 1988 beachfront management statute was a taking under the 5th amendment, thereby entitling Lucas to compensation.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: [Scalia] first rejected the contention that since the state had amended the statute to provide for special permits, that Lucas was still able to apply for this permit, thus making the action “un-ripe.” Even if he won a special permit, there is still a “temporary” taking until he does. There are two discrete categories of regulatory action that are compensable without looking at the particular facts - 1) physical “invasion” of property, and 2) denying all economically beneficial or productive use of land. Regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use carry with the the heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm. However, “harm preventing” and “benefit conferring” definitions can be made as support of either side of the controversy. It is not critical that the legislature have found the regulation to be “harm-preventing.” The appropriate inquiry is whether the regulation deprives the owner of the land of rights that were part of his legal title; i.e. that were not a nuisance or proscribed under normally property law. All total regulatory takings of land must be compensated unless the use would be a common-law nuisance anyway. Here, the land use was lawful, and it can not be said that there was some “implied limitation” on Lucas’ use of the land for residential houses.
7. Concurrence Reasoning: [Kennedy] reasoned that land is bought and sold all the time with knowledge that it is subject to the state’s power to regulate. Where there is a taking alleged from regulations which deprive property of all value, the test must be whether the deprivation is contrary to reasonable, investment-backed expectations.
8. Dissent Reasoning: [Blackmun] reasoned that there was no significant taking here, and certainly not a total deprivation of economic value. The court has unwisely gone against the precedent that the state has the power to prevent any use of its property that it finds harmful, and that the state statute is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. The state made findings tjat this was to prevent harm, and the court can not simply disregard them. Also, the new rule that the court fashions - “deprivation of all econaomically feasible use” itself cannot be determined objectively. Finally, the court’s exception for nuisance is confusing.
9. Dissent Reasoning: [Stevens] The court has unwisely departed from the precedent of Mahon which required a look at the individual facts in each case. The question of a taking is one of degree, and so requiring the dimunition in value of the land to be total is too rigid and too narrow. The generation of a general proposition that “total regulatory takings must be compensated” as a categorical rule is an unwise approach to takings cases.
