Legal Opinion · Dissent

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

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 23, 2002No. 00-1167Published

1Dissent

Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join,

dissenting.

For over half a decade petitioners were prohibited from building homes, or any other structures, on their land. Because the Takings Clause requires the government to pay compensation when it deprives owners of all economically viable use of their land, see Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003 (1992), and because a ban on all development lasting almost six years does not resemble any traditional land-use planning device, I dissent.

I

“A court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone ‘too…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API