The Takings Issue
“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
—The Fifth Amendment and Takings Clause of the United States Constitution
The United States Supreme Court on the “Takings Issue”
Under our system of government, one of the State’s primary ways of preserving the public weal is restricting the uses individuals can make of their property. While each of us is burdened somewhat by such restrictions, we, in turn, benefit greatly from the restrictions that are placed on others. These restrictions are properly treated as part of the burden of common citizenship.
—Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 491 (1987)
It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers.
—Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027 (1992)
The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.
—Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 394, 413 (1922)
Although our regulatory takings jurisprudence cannot be characterized as unified, [the Court’s] three [principal regulatory takings] inquiries . . . share a common touchstone. Each aims to identify regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain.
—Lingle v. Chevron USA, 544 U.S. 528, 539 (2005)