Results for Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
On this page:
 
US Supreme Court:

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

505 U.S. 1003 (1992), argued 2 March 1992, decided 29 June 1992 by vote of 6 to 2; Scalia for the Court, Kennedy, concurring in the judgment, Blackmun and Stevens, dissenting; Souter filed a statement asserting certiorari improvidently granted. David H. Lucas bought two residential beachfront lots for $975,000 in 1986. Two years later, a new Beachfront Management Act (BMA) barred construction of any permanent habitable structures on the lots. A state trial court held that the lots were rendered “valueless” and had been “taken” by operation of the act. This finding was not disturbed when the South Carolina supreme court rejected the takings claim on grounds that it was bound to accept the legislature's determination that the BMA was designed to protect the state's beaches.

Justice Antonin Scalia reviewed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's exposition in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) that a regulation would constitute a compensable taking when it went “too far,” and also the Court's decision to apply this test through “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries” in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978). Scalia noted that the Court had eschewed ad hoc balancing of interests where there was a permanent physical invasion of land, as in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982), or where the regulation denied all economically beneficial or productive use of land as in Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980).

Lucas deemed the Agins rule supported by the fact that “total deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner's point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation” (p. 1017). Regulations compelling that land be left in its natural state carry a “heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm” (p. 1018). In addition, the fact that any land regulation inevitably affects property values becomes less pressing in “the relatively rare situations where the government has deprived a landowner of all economically beneficial uses” (p. 1018). The opinion also noted that no compensation would be required if the regulations that deprives land of all economically beneficial use “inhere in … the restrictions that background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership” (p. 1029).

The left has criticized Lucas for countenancing conventional zoning while disabling ecoshed protection. The right has criticized Lucas for failing to define the “relevant parcel” taken, thus permitting government to take all value in a small area while asserting that the landowner has remaining value in other parts of the parcel.

The Court has stringently cabined Lucas, holding that it is not applicable where one house might be built on eighteen acres of land, in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001), or where development is not barred permanently but rather by an extended moratorium, in Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002). Sweeping regulations increasingly are defended on the grounds that they embody longstanding “background principles” favoring the environment.

— Steven J. Eagle

 
 
Wikipedia: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 1992
Decided June 29, 1992
Full case name: David H. Lucas, v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Citations: 505 U.S. 1003; 12 S. Ct. 2886; 120 L. Ed. 2d 798; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4537; 60 U.S.L.W. 4842; 34 ERC (BNA) 1897; 92 Daily Journal DAR 9030; 22 ELR 21104; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 715
Prior history: On certiorari from the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Subsequent history: On remand at the South Carolina Supreme Court: Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 309 S.C. 424 (S.C. 1992)
Holding
A regulation that deprives an owner of all economically beneficial uses of land constitutes a taking unless the proscribed use interests were not part of the title to begin with. In other words, a law or decree with the effect of depriving all economically beneficial use must do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts under the law of nuisance.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority by: Scalia
Concurrence by: Kennedy
Dissent by: Blackmun
Dissent by: Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.

Parties

Plaintiff/Petitioner 
David H. Lucas, owner of two beachfront properties in South Carolina.
Defendant/Respondent 
South Carolina Coastal Council, a body that grants permits for the use of beachfront land.

Background

State of law

South Carolina's Coastal Zone Management Act (1977) required owners of coast land in "critical areas" near beaches to obtain permits from Respondent South Carolina Coastal Council before committing the land to new uses. The state's Beachfront Management Act (1988), S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-10 et seq. (1989 Cum. Supp.), increased the regulations on the use of coastal land.

Facts of case

Petitioner Lucas purchased beachfront properties in 1986 for $975,000. David H. Lucas owned two vacant oceanfront lots in the Beachwood East Subdivision of the Wild Dunes development on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina. The Beachfront Management Act effectively deprived Petitioner Lucas of his ability to erect homes on his properties.

Prior history

Lucas filed suit asserting that the restrictions on the use of his lots was a taking of his property without just compensation. The lower court agreed and awarded Lucas $ 1,232,387.50 as just compensation for the regulatory taking. The government of South Carolina appealed, and was reversed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 304 S.C. 376 (S.C. 1991).

Procedural posture

Petitioner Lucas seeks reversal of the South Carolina Supreme Court judgment, reinstatement of the trial court judgment, and declaration that the Beachfront Management Act constituted a taking.

Legal analysis

Issue

Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in holding that the Beachfront Management Act was a valid exercise of the police power and did not constitute a taking.

Arguments/theories

Petitioner 
Not stated, presumed reflected in holding and reasoning.
Respondent 
(1) The Beachfront Management Act is a valid exercise of the police power, as the beach/dune area of the shores is a valuable public resource, and the erection of structures on that land contributes to erosion and destruction of that resource. (2) All property is held subject to the limitation that the state may regulate the property in such a way as to remove all value.

Rule of law

A regulation that deprives an owner of all economically beneficial uses of land constitutes a taking unless the proscribed use interests were not part of the title to begin with. In other words, a law or decree with the effect of depriving all economically beneficial use must do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts under the law of nuisance. As a result, "total takings" analysis requires a consideration of (1) the degree of harm to public lands or adjacent property posed by the regulated activities, (2) the social value of such activities, and (3) the relative ease with which the alleged harms can be avoided through measures taken by either the claimant or the government.

Holding

The South Carolina Supreme Court erred in holding that the Beachfront Management Act was a valid exercise of the police power and did not constitute a taking.

Reasoning

The majority argued as follows: (1) Deprivation of all economically beneficial use is, from the perspective of a property owner, deprivation of the property itself. (2) When all economically beneficial use is restricted, it is difficult to assume that the legislature is simply "adjusting" economical benefits and burdens. (3) Regulations that restrict all economically beneficial use may often be a guise of pressing that land into public service. (4) Lucas's lands have been deprived of all economically beneficial use. (5) There is no way to distinguish regulation that "prevents a harmful use" and confers benefits on nearby property. (6) Contrary to Respondent South Carolina's assertion, title is not held subject to the limitation that the state may regulate away all the property's economically beneficial use.

Notable concurring and dissenting opinions

Kennedy, J., concurring. 
The determination of no value must be considered with reference to the owner's reasonable, investment-backed expectations.
Souter, J. 
The case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted, as the decision of the trial court that a total taking had occurred is highly questionable based on the facts presented.
Blackmun, J., dissenting. 
Stevens, J., dissenting. 

Result

Judgment/disposition

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for determination of whether regulation could be enacted under state nuisance law.

Subsequent history

On remand at the South Carolina Supreme Court: Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 309 S.C. 424 (S.C. 1992), the court granted the parties leave to amend their pleadings to determine what the actual damages were.

Legacy and other notes

Established the modern "total takings" test.

See also

References

  1. ^ 505 U.S. 1003 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 
 

Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council" at WikiAnswers.

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council".  Read more

Search for answers directly from your browser with the FREE Answers.com Toolbar!  
Click here to download now. 

Get Answers your way! Check out all our free tools and products.

On this page:   E-mail   print Print  Link  

 

Keep Reading

Mentioned In:

 |  More >More >
 

Do you have the answers?