Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Round-Up

Big property rights case decided today. History of the case here.

Ilya Somin:

In sum, we know that at least six justices believe that at least some judicial takings are unconstitutional (even if only under the Due Process Clause). We don’t, however, know much about what the relevant standards are. If Justice Kennedy turns out to be the key swing voter, it’s quite possible that state courts will get a lot of deference, since only “arbitrary and irrational” judicial deprivations of previously established property rights would be overturned. However, I’m far from certain that I’m interpreting Kennedy’s vague statements correctly.

Property rights advocates avoided the worst-case scenario: a Supreme Court ruling holding that there is no such thing as a judicial taking that requires compensation under the Constitution. Whether they have won anything more than that remains to be seen. As Ben Barros at Propertyprof Blog puts it, “we will see a lot of litigation on these issues in the near future.”

Ilya Shaprio:

While the Court’s 8-0 ruling against the Florida oceanfront (now ocean-view) property owners was not the result we wanted, the part of the decision that was unanimously unfortunate turned on a narrow and probably mistaken interpretation of state property law. Much more importantly, the remainder of Justice Scalia’s opinion makes clear that judicial takings are just as much a violation of the Fifth Amendment as any other kind. “If a legislature or a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists,” Scalia writes for a four-justice plurality, “it has taken that property, no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation.” And the test for whether the government—any part of it—has committed a taking turns on “whether the property right allegedly taken was established.”

Tim Sandefur:

Today’s decision gives hope to millions of American property owners whose right to their homes, businesses, and other property is often at the mercy of judges who are willing to totally rewrite the law to expand government at their expense.