Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
17-393
IN THE
___________
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ......................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3
I. THE COURT BELOW IGNORED THIS
COURTS REGULATORY-TAKINGS
JURISPRUDENCE ............................................... 3
A. The Court Below Deviated from this Courts
Regulatory-Takings Jurisprudence When It
Failed to Apply Lucass Categorical-Taking
Standard .......................................................... 5
B. The Court Below Failed to Properly Apply
Penn Centrals Analysis of Reasonable,
Investment-Backed Expectations ................... 6
II. THE OPINION BELOW UNDERMINES THIS
COURTS PRECEDENTS AND PERMITS
RECCURRING MISAPPLICATION OF
TAKINGS LAW, WHICH UNDERMINES
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ............... 11
A. There Is Significant Disagreement in the
Lower Courts about How to Apply this
Courts Decisions and When to Consider
Noneconomic Credits in Regulatory-
Takings Claims .............................................. 11
B. Without this Courts Intervention, the
Decision Below May Contribute to a Race
to Develop, Undermining the Very Purpose
of Environmental Regulations ...................... 12
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 14
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Beyer v. City of Marathon,
197 So.3d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) ..... 9, 10, 13
Ganson v. City of Marathon,
222 So.3d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) ......... passim
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) .... 7
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council,
505 U.S. 1003 (1992) ...................................... passim
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,
533 U.S. 606 (2001) ........................................ passim
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City,
438 U.S. 104 (1978) .............................................. 3, 4
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
520 U.S. 725 (1997) ................................................ 11
Other Authorities
Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the
Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 S. Cal. L. Rev.
561 (1984) ................................................................. 3
Daniel R. Mandelker, Investment-Backed
Expectations in Taking Law, 27 Urb. Law. 215
(1995) ........................................................................ 8
David A. Dana, Natural Preservation and the Race to
Develop, 143 U. Penn. L. Rev. 655 (1995) . 12, 13, 14
R.S. Radford, Takings and Transferable Development
Rights in the Supreme Court: The Constitutional
Status of TDRs in the Aftermath of Suitum, 28
Stetson L. Rev. 685 (Winter 1999)..................... 4, 12
1
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
If you take a childs toy in exchange for the promise
of a piece of candy that the child will not be able to eat,
but may be able to trade sometime in the future, is it
still a taking? Yes, and this is also true of real prop-
erty. A token gift of potential future, unknown value
in no way changes the character of the initial action.
Under the categorical rule this Court announced in
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992),
the Beyers property was taken here.
ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT BELOW IGNORED THIS
COURTS REGULATORY-TAKINGS JURIS-
PRUDENCE
Regulatory-takings jurisprudence may be a mud-
dle, see Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the
Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 S. Cal. L. Rev. 561
(1984), but it is not muddled enough to ratify Floridas
actions here. While working their way through the
takings quagmire, the lower court misapplied the
Courts precedents to the Beyers claims. They used an
ad-hoc Penn Central analysis rather than evaluating
the effect of the relevant regulations as a categorical
taking. They shifted the burden from government to
landowner and made one Penn Central factorthe
reasonable investment-backed expectations prong
inappropriately dispositive, contrary to this Courts
ruling in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 634
4
CONCLUSION
Courts should be reminded that a regulatory action
that deprives a property of all value is a categorical
taking and requires just compensation. This Court
should also clarify the Penn Central factors, making
clear that any noneconomic credit must be considered
only after a taking has been identified. Both would
mitigate the potential race to develop.
For the foregoing reasons, and those stated by the
petitioners, the Court should grant the petition for a
writ of certiorari.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilya Shapiro
Counsel of Record
Trevor Burrus
Meggan DeWitt
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
October 16, 2017