Case Law

Question 1

Agins v. City of Tiburon

1980

Answer 1

• low density zoning is not a taking
• the test for determining where a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation is a taking is whether or not such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest

5th amendment

• Court upheld the city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning (restricting density to one single family residence per acre) was not a taking.
• partially overturned by Lingle v Chevron

Question 2

Dolan v. City of Tigard

1994

Answer 2

Rough proportionality test - an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.

5th amendment

• The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain to create a greenway and bicycle path by commerical businesses that wanted to expand. Not enough connection between exaction requirement and development.
• The “rough proportionality” test was created from this case.

Question 3

Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego

1981

Answer 3

Commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently

1st Amendment

The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Question 4

Hadacheck v. Sebastian

1915

Answer 4

First approved the regulation of the location of land uses

Zoning

• The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment

Question 5

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty

1926

Answer 5

Upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power.

Zoning, 14th amendment

• The Court found that the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
• Zoning permitted within reason in preventing blight and nuisances.
• Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

Question 6

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

1928

Answer 6

• Established limitations on zoning
• Used the rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance stating it had no valid public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, or welfare) and was a violation of 14th amendment’s due process.

Zoning, 14th amendment

• Nectow’s property had a business and two residences. He planned to sell all for redevelopment. City instituted zoning on the residences to restrict uses to residential. Nectow filed suit for the devaluation of property after developers backed out.
• Two years after Euclid v. Ambler
• the U.S. Supreme Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance stating it had no valid public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, or welfare) and was a violation of 14th amendment’s due process.
• The decision established limitations on zoning.

Question 7

Rapanos v. United States

2006

Answer 7

The Clean Water Act is applicable to wetlands that are either connected to traditional navigable waters or have a “significant nexus” with one.

Challenges to Federal Acts

• The court upheld previous interpretations of the Clean Water Act to define “navigable waters” to include wetlands that were immediately adjacent to and with “a continous surface connection” with traditional navigable waters
• Wetlands that are not adjacent to traditionally navigable waters must have a “significant nexus” with one, for example if the wetland has singificant effect on the water quality of navigable waters.

Question 8

Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon

1922

Answer 8

• first to define a taking under the 5th amendment
• when a regulation goes too far and diminishes the value too much it is a taking that requires compensation

5th amendment

*Kohler Act prohibited mining in a way that causes the caving in or sinking of structures or homes.
* Penn Coal went to mine beneath Mahon’s home who then filed suit.
* The court determined the Khoeler Act was considered eminent domain requiring compensation as it eliminated the value of mining rights below occuied properties.
* The Court found that if a regulation goes too far (ie no public safety concern) it will be recognized as a taking requring compensation.
* This ruling was the first to define a “taking” under the 5th Amendment - depends on the extent of diminution in the value of property.

Question 9

Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York

1978

Answer 9

• Landmark preservation law was not a taking.
• Look at all rights as a whole to determine economic impact of a regulation.

5th amendment

• The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.
• A taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
• Court does not look at property rights by each piece but rather as whole - ie taking air rights but nothing else is a small impact relative to total ownership

Question 10

First English Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles

1987

Answer 10

Just compensation required for temporary takings

5th Amendment

The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages.

Question 11

Nollan v. California Coastal Council

1987

Answer 11

There must be an essential nexus between the legitimate public interest and the condition imposed on the poperty owner to achieve that interest.

5th amendment

• The U. S. Supreme Court held that there was a legitimate government interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach, but there was no connection between these interests, the Nollans’ requested development, and the easment the Council was requiring of them.
• It was considered a regulatory taking without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment

Question 12

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

1992

Answer 12

A total reduction of value after a regulation is in place is considered a taking.

5th amendment

• In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots.
• In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands
• Lucas’s lots had been rendered valueless by the state law.
• “[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good…he has suffered a taking.”
• Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.

Question 13

City of Los Angeles vs. Taxpayers for Vincent

1984

Answer 13

Signs can be regulated for aesthetics but not content

1st Amendment

• The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign.
• The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest

Question 14

Brerman v. Parker

1954

Answer 14

• Private property can be taken for a public purpose, even if not blighted.
• Aesthetics and urban renewal are public purposes.

5th Amendment

The Court held that private property could be taken for a public purpose as part of a redevelopment, even if the property is not blighted.

Question 15

City of Ladue v. Gilleo

1994

Answer 15

Banning signs is a violation of free speech

1st Amendment

• Ladue banned all signs except for about 10 types that were expressly authorized (such as road signs, for sale signs, etc).
• Gilleo wanted to put up a political sign in her yard.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city’s law prohibiting a window sign was a violaton of free speech under the First Amendment.

Question 16

Village of Belle Terre v. Borass

1974

Answer 16

Zoning can be used to foster certain types of lifestyles desired by the community.

14th Amendment

• The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family.
• The Court thus extended the concept of zoning to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Question 17

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House Inc.

1995

Answer 17

The city’s zoning definition of “family,” which excluded a group home, violated the Fair Housing Act.

Fair Housing Act

• Edmonds’ zoning code provided that occupants of single-family dwelling units must compose a family, defined as “persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [unrelated] persons.”
• Oxford House operated a group home for 10-12 recovering addicts in single-family zoned neighborhood.
• The U.S. Supreme Court held that the city’s zoning definition of “family,” which excluded a group home, violated the Fair Housing Act, because it discriminated against people with handicaps by refusing to make reasonable accomodations.

Question 18

Golden v. Town of Ramapo

1972

Answer 18

Established growth management planning as a valid exercise of police power.

Growth Management

• The Court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. Developers could also construct their own infrastructure.
• Ramapo, NY

Question 19

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma

1975

Answer 19

Quotas on the annual number of building permits issued by a city are constitutional.

Growth Management

• Petaluma faced intense development pressure with development jumping up to 600 and then 900 a year, overwhelming public services.
• Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
• Cities can use police power to dictate a slower rate of growth.

Question 20

Associated Home Builders of East Bay v. City of Livermore

1976

Answer 20

Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Growth management

The Court upheld a city ordinance that prohibited the issuance of new residential building permits until the sewage disposal, water supply, and local education facilities were in compliance with specified standards.

Question 21

Munn v. Illinois

1876

Answer 21

Established principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.

14th Amendment

• The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process, because it was neccesary for the public good.
• Established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.

Question 22

Welch v. Swasey

1909

Answer 22

Established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.

Zoning

Height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, proper exercise of police power, and doesn’t violate equal protection and due process of 14th amendment

Question 23

Eubank v. City of Richmond

1912

Answer 23

Establishing building lines is a valid exercise of police power, but the authority to establish them should not be delegated to private citizens.

Zoning

• The Supreme Court found the specific statute regulating building lines (setbacks) in this case was an unreasonable exercise of the police power.
• The ordinance had allowed owners of 2/3 of land abutting any street to request a building line.
• However, the decision did not suggest that states and municipalities lacked the power to establish building lines.

Question 24

Young v. American Minitheatres

1972

Answer 24

Upheld a zoning ordinance that decentralized adult businesses
Secondary Effects Doctrine

1st Amendment

• The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. Adult businesses could not locate within 1,000 ft of specific uses or 500 ft or residential areas.
• The law was not passed to silence certain types of speech/expression, but intended to prevent deterioration of neighborhoods.
• Secondary effects doctrine - permits normally unconstitutional content-based regulation to be treated as if it were content-neutral.

Question 25

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc.

1986

Answer 25

• Cities can can restrict adult entertaiment to a single zoning district.
• Cities do not have to guarantee that there is land available for the use, but cannot prohibit it entirely.

1st Amendment

• The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.
• The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available for the use, but it cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.
• Expanded on the Secondary Effects Doctrine - Cities can resstrict the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment since it is treating the secondary effects not the content.

Question 26

Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corporation

1987

Answer 26

Federal statute authorizing the FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles was not a taking.

5th Amendment

Public utilities challenged a federal statue that authorized the FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court found that a taking had not occured.

Question 27

S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection

2006

Answer 27

The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Challenges to federal acts

• Section 401 of the Clean Water Act conditioned federal licensing for activity that could result in “any discharge” into navigable waters upon the receipt of a state certification that water protection laws would not be violated.
• Suit was based on whether or not the term “discharge” applied to dams.
• The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 28

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

2013

Answer 28

When an easement is abandoned (in this case railroad), the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Challenges to Federal Acts

• 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants easements for railroad land.
• When the railroad abandons land, it should be settled as an easement.
• The Court found that when an easement is abandoned (in this case, an easement for a railroad ROW), the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Question 29

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company

1896

Answer 29

• 1st significant historic preservation case
• Acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.

5th Amendment

• The first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.
• The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.

Question 30

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

1978

Answer 30

• First interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and confirmed that Section 7 of the act did not allow exemptions.
• Granted an injunction on a publicly funded dam project that would endanger the snail darter population.

Challenges to Federal Acts

• Court’s first interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
• Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies “to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species….”
• The Court upheld the lower court’s ruling that the Snail Darter is protected by the Endangered Species Act and granted an injuction for TVA’s dam project since it wuld violate Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
• This occured despite Congress continuing to fund the dam and stating that it should be completed.

Question 31

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

1977

Answer 31

Court ruled that a zoning ordinance limiting occupancy to members of a single family violated substantive due process as it was an intrusive regulation of family without achieving a legitimate public interest.

14th amendment

• East Cleveland’s housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family.
• Zoning ordinance prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild.
• The Court held that the ordinance violated Moore’s rights as it constituted “intrusive regulation of the family” without accruing some tangible state interest.
• Violation of substantive due process.

Question 32

Spur Industries v. Webb Dev. Company

1972

Answer 32

The court affirmed that the Spur business was a public nuisance and granted an injunction; however, Webb was required to compensate Spur for shutting down or relocating because he brought the people to the nuisance.

Nuisance Law

• The Court affirmed that the feedlots next to Sun City retirement community were both a public and private nuisance.
• However, the developer, having brought people to the nuisance, was required to indemnify (compensate) Spur Industries for the costs of relocating or shutting down the feedlots.
• An injunction is only proper if it is declared a public nuisance. Private nuisances can only be remedied through damages.
• “Coming to the nuisance” doctrine - you cannot call on the court to make an area suitable to live if it wasn’t when you moved there.

Question 33

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel

1975

Mount Laurel I

Answer 33

• Mount Laurel’s exclusionary zoning which prohibited multifamily, mobile homes, and low- to moderate-income housing.
• Mount Laurel Doctrine - zoning powers must be used in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of low- to moderate-income housing

14th Amendment

• The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing.
• The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.
• Mount Laurel doctrine: requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low and moderate income households
• New Jersey Supreme Court

Question 34

1st Amendment

Answer 34

• Freedom of Speech (often applies to adult businesses and signs)
• Freedom of Religion (religious facilities)
• Freedom of Association (group homes)

Question 35

5th Amendment

Answer 35

Just compensation for takings (applies to eminent domain and takings without compensation)

Question 36

14th Amendment

Answer 36

• Due process (eminent domain, takings, exactions)
• Substantive due process (whether a rule itself is valid)
• Procedural due process (whether or not the rule is applied fairly)
• Equal protection

Question 37

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

2006

Answer 37

• Court determined that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are considered “air pollutants” under the clean air act.
• The EPA had the authority to regulate these gases and had to provide reasonable justification for why it would not regulate them.

Challenges to federal acts

• Clean Air Act required the federal government ot regulate air pollution (1963, amended 1977, 1990), but did not refer to climate change or greenhouse gases. Act allowed EPA to set emissions standards for any air pollutant.
• MA and 11 other states and several cities brought suit against the EPA to force the agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change. EPA had previously claimed they didn’t have the authority to do so, and if they did it would interfere with Bush administrations efforts to address human-caused climate change.
• Court determined that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases

Question 38

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.

2015

Answer 38

Court determined that disparate impact claims are within the jurisdiction of the Fair Housing Act

Challenges to federal acts

• Disparate impact (or adverse impact) = when a policy, practice, rule, or other system that appears to be neutral on its face results in a disproportionate impact on a protected group. Federal laws prohibit disparate impact.
• ICP claimed Texas dept. disproportionately allocated too many low-income housing tax credits to predominantly black inner-city areas.
• ICP alleged that their practices created a disparate impact in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
• Court held that disparate impact claims are within the jurisdiction of the Fair Housing Act.
• Antidiscrimination laws are interpreted to allow disparate impact claims when their text “refers to the consequences of actions and not just to the mindset of actors.” The Fair Housing Act uses results-oriented language, focused on the effects of an action rather than just the intent, allowing disparate impact claims to be applicable.

Question 39

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

2000

Answer 39

The Act declares that governments cannot implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious assembly unless the government demonstrates a compelling government interest.

Question 40

Cutter v. Wilkinson

2005

Answer 40

The Court ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

Challenges to federal acts

• Section 3 of RLUIPA requires state prisons to alleviate substantial burdens that they impose on the religious exercise of prisoners unless they can show that denial is the least restrive means of advancing a “compelling” government interest.
• Prisoners in OH challenged prison officials’ failure to accomodate the inmate’s “nonmainstream” religions, citing the RLUIPA. Prison officials argued the act violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
• The court found that the RLUIPA is a constitutional religious accommodation under the 1st amendment’s establishment clause

Question 41

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona

2014

Answer 41

A sign ordinance cannot impose more stringent restrictions on one type of message than another.

1st Amendment

• Gilbert ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs displaying political or ideological messages.
• After being cited for violation of the ordinance, a church filed suit saying the regulations violated its 1st amendment right to free speech.
• The Court found the sign ordinance was not
• content-neutral and did not pass strict scrutiny.
• A statute is content-based if it singles out a specific subject, even if it may not target ideas or view points within that subject matter (ie treating all political signs (regardless of view point) differently than other types of signs is still content-based.
• The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages.

Question 42

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York

1976

Answer 42

• Court declared the zoning amendment unconstitutional as it deprived the property owners of reasonable income-generating or other private uses of their property, essentially destroying its economic value without due process.
• Regulation invalidated but it was not a taking requiring compensation.

5th Amendment

• A NY residential complex included 1 private parks. City re-zoned the private parks as public parks and effectively prohibited development on the parks, leaving no income producing use of the property. Owners received transferable development rights to be used elsewhere.
• Court declared the zoning amendment unconstitutional as it deprived the property owners of reasonable income-generating or other private uses of their property, essentially destroying its economic value without due process.
• Transfer of development rights did not adequately compensate for loss of reasonable use of their property.
• The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive
• compensation.
• A taking is when private property is appropriated for public use and requires just compensation. When there is only regulation of the uses of private property, no compensation is neccesary. However, regulations can go too far so as they constitute a taking.

Question 43

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation

1982

Answer 43

A cable tv company’s cable installation on private property constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

5th Amendment

• Cable company installed cables on a building for its tenants and for other nearby buildings.
• Property owner argued allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking.
• Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring compensation
• A physical invasion is more severe than regulation of property - no control of timing, extent, or nature of invasion
• Permanent physical occupation of your property: taking has occurred regardless of how important the public benefit is or how minimal the economic impact

Question 44

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis

1987

Answer 44

The Court found that the enactment of regulations requiring coal companies to maintain surface support for dwellings did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

5th Amendment

• PA’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act - prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. Required 50% of coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support.
• The Court found that the enactment of regulations requiring coal companies to maintain surface support for dwellings did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

Question 45

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

1997

Answer 45

The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

5th amendment

• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that an undeveloped lot near lake tahoe could not be developed under the agencies’ regulations but that development rights could be sold under transfer of Development Rights program.
• The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

Question 46

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.

1999

Answer 46

The Court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

5th amendment

• City repeatedly denied a development permit for 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property. Development was in conformance with comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
• The Court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
• Upheld a $1.45M jury award to development.

Question 47

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

2001

Answer 47

The Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims

5th amendment

Rejects state claim ruling that a purchaser or successive title holder is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it affects a taking. This would put an expiration on the Takings clause, causing limitations with property inheritance, selling of property, etc

Question 47

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.

2002

Answer 47

A moratoria on development did not constitute a taking requiring just compensation.

5th amendment

• Agency imposed 2 moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area.
• Court found that the moratoria on development did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Question 48

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.

2005

Answer 48

The Court found that takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

5th amendment

• The Court found that takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.
• Overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent.

Question 49

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

2005

Answer 49

The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

5th Amendment

• The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• The Telecommunications Act already provides an exppress, private means of redress.

Question 50

Kelo v. City of New London

2005

Answer 50

The Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.

5th amendment

The Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.

Question 51

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2009

Answer 51

Ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation

5th amendment

• Plan to create a state-owned public beach between private waterfront property and the Gulf of Mexico through its beach nourishment program. Beachfront property owners objected to project and filed suit.
• Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida doctrine of avulsion, which holds that land created by a sudden event belongs to the owner of the seabed, applies to beach restoration. Because the state owns the seabed, there could be no taking.
• Plaintiff then claimed Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of its theorized property rights (the right of beachfront property to touch the water) was a taking without just compensation.
• The US Supreme Court affirmed Florida Supreme Court decision. Additionally they ruled that the burden is on the property owner to show that a property right existed prior to a judicial decision that abolishes the right.
• Evaluating whether a taking has occurred should not differ across the branches of government (ie a legislative taking vs judicial taking claim should be evaluated the same)

Question 52

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management

2012

Answer 52

• Found that the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use.
• There was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work, and thus a taking had occurred.

5th amendment

• Owner requested permit to develop beyond original permit. City agreed if he would deed remaining land to a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. He refused and City denied application.
• The Court found that there was no specific regulation requiring mitigation work to get a permit, and that a taking had occurred.

Question 53

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation

1977

Answer 53

• Discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
• An affordable housing developer was denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner

14th amendment

• An affordable housing developer was denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family for a project to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing.
• Filed suit claiming racial discriminiation violating equal protection clause.
• The ordinance does not directly mention a protected class (which would require a strict scrutiny test), so a discriminatory intent test was utilized.
• The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner.
• Discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.

Question 54

City of Boerne v. Flores

1997

Answer 54

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

14th Amendment

• Archbishop applied for building permit to expand church located within a historic district and considered contributing property. City denied permit. Archbishop brought suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993.
• RFRA was a federal law that required strict scrutiny be applied to any law burdening religious freedom - they must be the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling government interest. Applied to both state and federal laws.
• The Court ruled that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the 14th amendment and struct down RFRA’s applicability to states.
• Ultimately city and church came to an agreement to leave 80% of church intact and allow a new 750 seat auditorium on the rear.

Question 55

Mugler v. Kansas

1887

Answer 55

• “A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking.”
• Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor manufacturing and sale did not consitute a taking and violation of due process.

14th Amendment

• A Kansas law prohibited the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor and considered places in which this occured were a nuisance.
• The Plaintiff built and operated a brewery prior to the law being enacted, and did not obtain a permit once the law was in place. He was arrested for making and selling beer.
• This case was decided together with Kansas v. Ziebold.
• Plaintiff argued Kansas lacked authority under due process to prohibit manufacture of beer for personal use or export. Also argued devaluation of property due to use limitations was a taking.
• “A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking.”
• Court ruled it was not a taking or a violation of due process.

Question 56

Kaiser Aetna v. United States

1979

Answer 56

• The Court held that a natural waterway on private property made navigable with private funds could be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
• However, requiring public access to a private marina would be considered a physical invasion of private property, and therefore a taking requiring just compensation.

5th Amendment

• Kaiser Aetna built housing and created the Hawaii Kai Marina, which included dredging a channel to allow boats to travel between the marina and Maunalua Bay.
• US sought to exercise the Commerce Clause granting jurisdiction to federal government over the surface of all navigable waters.
• Kaiser contended that the waters were private and if it were required to be open for public use it would be a taking requiring just compensation.
• The Court held that a natural waterway on private property made navigable with private funds could be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. However, requiring public access to a private marina would be considered a physical invasion of private property, and therefore a taking requiring just compensation.