Taking Clause Flashcards
Give me the facts of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City United States Supreme Court (1978)
New York City passed the Landmarks Preservation Law in 1965 to protect historic buildings. Grand Central Terminal, owned by Penn Central, was designated a landmark under this law. In 1968, Penn Central leased the airspace above the terminal to UGP Properties, expecting significant revenue. However, when Penn Central applied for permission to construct an office building above the terminal, the city’s landmarks commission denied the request. Penn Central sued, arguing that the denial amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property. The New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of Penn Central but did not award damages. The state court of appeals reversed, siding with the city. Penn Central then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What are the issues for PCT v. New York City
Does the application of the Landmarks Preservation Law to Penn Central amount to a “taking” that requires just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Give me the holding/reasoning for PCT v. New York City
No, the regulation does not constitute a taking. The Supreme Court applied a new multi-factor test and concluded that:
Economic Impact – The law does not completely diminish the property’s value, as Penn Central can still generate revenue from the terminal.
Investment-Backed Expectations – Penn Central did not originally expect to develop the airspace when it acquired the property.
Character of Government Action – The regulation does not physically invade the property but only limits development. Additionally, the law serves a significant public interest in preserving historical landmarks.
Because the regulation does not meet the criteria for a compensable taking, the Court upheld the Landmarks Preservation Law, affirming the lower court’s decision.
Give me the facts of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
David Lucas bought two beachfront lots in South Carolina for $975,000 in 1986. He wanted to build houses on them. But in 1988, South Carolina passed a law that said he couldn’t build on his lots. Lucas said this was like the state taking his property and he should be paid. The local court agreed with him, but the state Supreme Court didn’t, so the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is the issue for Lucas v. SC coastal council
The question is whether a state can pass a law that makes private property worthless without having to pay the owner.
Give me the holding/reasoning for Lucas v. SC coastal council
The U.S. Supreme Court said no, a state can’t do that. If a law makes property worthless, it’s like the state took the property and thus has to pay the owner. But there’s an exception if the law stops something the owner didn’t have the right to do in the first place. The court also said that if a law stops a property from being used in a harmful way, the state doesn’t have to pay. In this case, the court said Lucas should be paid because the South Carolina law made his property worthless. But the court sent the case back to the state to see if Lucas’s plans for his property would have been harmful.
What are the facts of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
In 1878, Pennsylvania Coal Co. sold a piece of land to Mahon but kept the right to mine underneath it. The deed said Mahon knew about the mining risks. In 1921, Pennsylvania made a law stopping coal mining that could harm surface land. Mahon sued Pennsylvania Coal, saying the new law stopped them from mining under his property. The case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
What are the issue for PCC v. Mahon
The issue in this case is whether a law that overregulates property can be seen as a taking.
Give me the holding and reasoning
The court said yes, the law is a taking. Pennsylvania Coal can keep mining because Mahon knew about the risks when he bought the land. A state can make laws that affect property values, but if the law makes the property value drop a lot, the state has to buy the land and pay for it. In this case, the law doesn’t fix a public problem or protect safety, so it’s not within the government’s power. The state went too far and made coal mining too hard to do. So, Pennsylvania can’t make Pennsylvania Coal stop mining without paying them.
What are the facts for Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
Dolan owned a property near a creek’s floodplain where she ran a store. She wanted to make her store bigger and pave her parking lot, which would increase storm water runoff. The City of Tigard said she could do this if she dedicated part of her property to a public greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Dolan didn’t agree with this and appealed to several courts, ending up at the United States Supreme Court.
What is the issue for Dolan v. City of Tigard
The question is whether the conditions the city put on Dolan’s development permit are closely related to the government’s goals of preventing floods and reducing traffic.
Give me the Holding and Reasoning for Dolan v. City of Tigard
No, the conditions the city put on Dolan’s permit aren’t closely related enough to the government’s goals. The government can’t put restrictions on property unless the conditions are closely related to the impact of the land use. In this case, the city didn’t prove that the conditions were necessary to offset the impact of Dolan’s redevelopment. The city also didn’t prove that a public greenway was necessary to control flooding, or that the proposed pathway would likely reduce traffic congestion. The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision is reversed.
What are the facts for Nollan v. Cali Coastal Commission
James and Marilyn Nollan owned beachfront property in California. They wanted to rebuild a home on their property, but the California Coastal Commission said they could only do so if they let the public pass over their property to get to the beach. The Commission said this was necessary to prevent beach congestion and protect the public’s view. The Nollans didn’t agree with this condition and took the case to court. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.
What is the issue for Nollan v. Cali Coastal Commission
The question is whether a permit condition can be considered a taking if it doesn’t have a clear connection to a legitimate state interest in solving a problem related to the development.
What is the Holding and Reasoning for Nollan v. Cali Coastal Commission
Yes, a permit condition can be considered a taking if it doesn’t have a clear connection to a legitimate state interest. If the condition doesn’t really help solve the problem it’s supposed to solve, then it’s a taking. In this case, the condition to let the public pass over the Nollans’ property would have been a taking if it wasn’t attached to their permit. The Commission’s reasons for the condition don’t make sense. So, because the condition is a taking, the government has to pay the Nollans for the easement. The lower court’s decision is reversed.
What are the facts for Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
In the 1960s, the Hawaii government found out that a few people owned almost half of the state’s land. This was causing problems like high land prices. So, the government passed a law to take some of this land and give it to more people. Some landowners didn’t like this and took the case to court, saying the law was against the Constitution.
What is the Issue for Hawwai HA v. Midkiff
The question is whether a state can take land from a few people and give it to many people, if it pays for the land. This is about the ‘public use’ part of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
What is the holding and reasoning for Hawaii HA v. Midkiff
The Supreme Court said yes, a state can do this. They looked at a past case where a similar thing happened and was upheld. They said that almost any use of land within a state’s police power is a ‘public use’. In this case, Hawaii was trying to fix a problem with land ownership and help its citizens. So, the law is constitutional and the decision of the lower court is reversed.
Give me the Facts about Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
In 2000, the City of New London in Connecticut decided to use its power to take private property and sell it to private developers. The city said this was to create new jobs and increase money from property sales. Susette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery, who both lived in homes in the area, were among the property owners affected. They and seven other property owners sued the city, saying this violated the Fifth Amendment’s ‘public use’ requirement. The state court allowed some properties to be taken but not others, and the state supreme court agreed with all the takings.
What is the Issue of Kelo v. City of New London
The question in this case is whether a state can use its power to take private property and sell it to private developers to create new jobs and increase tax revenues without violating the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
What is the takings Clause, and What amendment is it under?
Under the 5th Amendment.
Takings Clause, stating “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” protects citizens from the government taking private property without fair compensation and applies to both federal and state governments. It limits the government’s power of eminent domain, which allows the government to seize private property for public use.
What is the holding and reasoning for Kelo v. City of New London
The Supreme Court said yes, the city can use its power to take private property and give it to private developers without violating the Fifth Amendment’s public use requirement. This is because the main goal of the power to take property is to help the public in some way. The court said that the state’s decision that this was necessary to help the public by increasing jobs and tax revenue should be respected. The court also said that an economic benefit to the public can still be a valid public purpose. The court rejected the argument that the public benefit needs to be “reasonably certain” to happen. The city’s plan was upheld as constitutional because it helps the public.
Types of taking and explaining what it is
- Physical taking: the government directly appropriates or physically invades private property for its own use (e.g., eminent domain).
- Regulatory taking: Government regulations restrict a property owner’s use of their property so significantly that it rises to the level of a taking, requiring compensation.
