![]() ![]() Factors might include (1) "he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant," (2) "the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations," and (3) "the character of the governmental action." Penn Central Transp. 302, 326 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). For all other regulatory takings claims, the Court has "generally eschewed any set formula for determining how far is too far," requiring lower courts instead "to engage in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. 419 (1982), or leaves land "without economically beneficial or productive options for its use," Lucas v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. This occurs categorically whenever a regulation requires a physical intrusion, Loretto v. A regulation effects a taking, we have said, whenever it "goes too far." Pennsylvania Coal Co. Our current regulatory takings jurisprudence leaves much to be desired. I recently explained that "it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Murr v. Wisconsin (2017) - actually made the mess even worse than it was before.Īs Jonathan Adler notes, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a forceful dissent lamenting the sorry state of the doctrine and the Court's seeming unwillingness to improve it: ![]() The Court's most recent regulatory takings ruling - Murr v. Scholars and other legal commentators across the political spectrum have long recognized that regulatory takings jurisprudence is a mess, though there is deep disagreement about how to fix it. Regulatory takings cases arise when the government restricts property owners' rights, but without physically invading, occupying, or destroying the property in question. Hawaii Land Use Commission, an important regulatory takings case that might have forced the justices to clarify the Court's badly flawed jurisprudence in this field. Earlier today, the Supreme Court refused to hear Bridge Aina Le'a v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |