Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided, 8-0, in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, that a Florida law which allows the State DEP to fill in submerged land (owned, under Florida law, by the State), and then to cut off the littoral owners’ rights to accretion of the beach front without paying compensation, was not a taking requiring compensation under the 5th Amendment. The decision was fairly easy, even for the property rights wing of the court, because it concluded that Florida law had always provided for such a result, so that the action by the DEP did not change the private owners’ preexisting rights.
However, the decision masks both continuing deep divisions on the Court concerning Takings Clause issues and confusion, if not incoherence, in the Justices’ thinking. As I noted when the Court took the case, the Court in Lucas distinguished state regulatory action limiting owners’ use of the property from “restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.” I think it’s a specious distinction. We used to regulate by common law of nuisance. Now we regulate by statute and regulation. Why should the common law be treated differently by the Supreme Court for Takings Clause purposes than statutes or regulations?
In yesterday’s decision, four members of the Court answered this question. It turns out, according to Justices Scalia, Alioto, Roberts, and Thomas, that judicial changes to the common law may also subject the government to a regulatory takings claim. The reason? It is that, according to Justice Scalia, “the Constitution was adopted in an era when courts had no power to ‘change’ the common law.” News to me. I hadn’t realized that there was a halcyon day when the common law was fixed and perfect. Thus, it turns out, common law restrictions on property avoid the taking label only if they existed as of the time of the Constitution.
Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment (Stevens did not participate), but stated that it was premature to try to determine when judicial decisions might provide grounds for a takings claim. Justice Kennedy did emphasize that the plain language of the Takings Clause does not address what are now known as regulatory takings:
The Framers most likely viewed this Clause as applying only to physical appropriation pursuant to the power of eminent domain.
Of course, Justice Kennedy is right on this score – a point somehow ignored by Justice Scalia in his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation.
I normally represent private property owners and there are certainly times when, it appears to me, the government tries to achieve what might be noble objectives on the backs of private owners, simply because it doesn’t want to bear the cost. Nonetheless, I think that this issue isn’t that complicated and the proper resolution would eliminate most takings claims. If a private use of land unreasonably imposes costs on neighbors or the public, then that use can be restricted, either by courts or by regulatory agencies, without payment of compensation. That type of regulation simply isn’t a taking. And, yes, the definition of “unreasonable” may change over time. That’s life in the big city – or the beachfront. Get over it.