AMEND 5, 14 & A1§10Cl.1

Question 1

Penn Central [CASE ON POINT FOR TAKINGS] [not that important the later cards on this are better]

Answer 1

In determining whether a state regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, courts should consider the economic impact of the regulation on the owner, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action involved in the regulation.

Penn Central: Regulation restricting what people could do with their property if it has heritage value. Could the government tax in a targeted or discriminatory way, be considered similar to a taking?
You give up property when you are taxed, rationale is the justice in compensation where public interest is served by paying taxes.

Question 2

Takings Clause TLDR

Answer 2

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is designed to prevent the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole

Question 3

Lucas

Answer 3

A state regulation that completely deprives private property of all its economic value constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that requires the payment of just compensation to the property owner, unless the economic activity prevented by the regulation is not part of the owner’s initial title or property rights when acquiring the property.

Lucas was compensated for permanent prohibition of all economically valuable use, then it got
Changed into a temporary rule. Lucas then gets cash and he isn’t permanently deprived after some time.
No local authority will make it permanent. They will just go temporary and then decide if they want to renew or not and are not subject to brightline rule of Lucas.
Moratorium in Tahoe lasted longer than Lucas and Tahoe could not get automatic compensation.

Question 4

Cedar Point

Answer 4

Easement to Enter
Union workers, easement can be something physically always there or a right of access that allows them to come on the land when they wish to talk to the workers.

A per se physical taking occurs if the government gives someone a right to physically occupy someone else’s private property either temporarily or permanently.

Question 5

Blaisdell [Contracts Clause]

Answer 5

Instant Facts: During the Depression, a debtor utilized a state law to obtain an extension of time to repay his mortgage and avoid foreclosure, and the lender argued that the law violated the Contracts Clause.

Black Letter Rule: States can legislatively alter remedies for the collection of debts if the legislation reasonably relates to a public purpose and protects the basic value of creditor claims.

Dissenters:
The purpose of the contracts clause is supposed to be a limit on the sovereign power of the states and reflect a judgment of the founders and adopters. State legislatures should not have this discretion or capability.

Question 6

Blaisdell was limited only to

Answer 6

TEMPORARY increases to limits on freedom of K under Constitution

Question 7

U.S. Trust v. NJ [K CLause]

Answer 7

The impairment of a contract between a state and private bondholders may only be upheld if it is both
reasonable and
necessary
to serve an
important public purpose.

Question 8

Berman [PUBLIC USE]

Answer 8

Balance between the rights of private property owners and the right of the government to take that property for a purpose that benefits the public at large.

Established test for “Public Use”***

Question 9

J. Douglas in Berman

Answer 9

“legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by
by social legislation… Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to
realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.””

Question 10

Hawaii v. Midkiff

Answer 10

1. Taking the land from one owner and giving to another person
2. Hawaii where at the time 72 people/private landowners owned 47 percent of Hawaii. Small number of people own most of the land
3. Only 4% owned by other private people.
4. Redistribution exercise, broadening the number of property owners in Hawaii. Court upholds as a public use.

A state may use the eminent domain process to take property that is heavily concentrated in the hands of a few private landowners and redistribute it among the general population of private individuals.

Question 11

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Answer 11

Mans wanted to use his wetland land to build a beach club & was denied bc shit is hard to do, but part of his land could be built on. Sued the state, saying that the rules were unfairly taking away his property rights and asked for over $3 million in damages.

J. Kennedy Rule: A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect can still raise a regulatory takings claim. if they didn’t allow this, a state could just wait for a property to change hands and then avoid having to pay compensation for taking away property rights.

(K: The Dylan & Reedy Creek vibe case)

Question 12

J. Kennedy in Palazzolo

Answer 12

Maj: A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect can still raise a regulatory takings claim. if they didn’t allow this, a state could just wait for a property to change hands and then avoid having to pay compensation for taking away property rights.

Question 13

Stephens Dissent in Palazzolo

Answer 13

The essential question is: what was the law at the time P was buying?

Don’t need to compensate because the regulations were apart of the story when you purchased.
If regulations are not apart of the story then its different.

Question 14

Tahoe

Answer 14

if “physical invasion” of private property by the government is temporary, then it doesn’t constitute a taking

Court resists the temptation to adopt per se rules in cases involving partial regulatory takings and prefers to examine a number of factors, rather than a simple and mathematically precise formula

Question 15

Miller [Due Process x Takings]

Answer 15

No taking when the government destroys one type of property to protect another type of property

near an apple orchard, and Virginia did not want the cedar rust plant disease to spread from Miller’s trees to the apple orchard.

Why Takings: The court held that the power of the government to destroy the property was a consideration in evaluating whether Congress exceeded its Constitutional Powers

Question 16

Burnham [CHECK]

Answer 16

I don’t have this in my notes. the only applicable Burnham I remember is CivPro Tag Jx? Which would be Due Process.

I think everyone grouped CC, 5, and 14 together

Question 17

Penn Coal

Answer 17

[Case on Point for Regulatory Taking]
Rule: compensation was also required for a “regulatory taking” - a restriction on the use of property that went “too far”

Prior to this case, the Takings Clause was understood to provide protection only against a direct appropriation of property, either personal or real.

Question 18

What is regulatory taking?

Answer 18

government regulation goes so far as to significantly diminish the value or use of a property, to the extent that it is functionally equivalent to a direct appropriation or physical invasion of the property

• States have broad power to regulate housing conditions & LL/T relationship (w/out comp for all economic injury)
• BUT if regualtion goes to far –> regulatory taking

Question 19

Physical Taking vs Regulatory taking

Answer 19

The severity of the burden that government imposes upon private property rights is a key factor in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred.

The Court has held that physical takings require compensation because of the unique burden they impose. In the context of regulatory takings, the complete elimination of a property’s value can be a determinative factor

Question 20

Loreto v. Teleprompter

Answer 20

Permanent physical occupation = taking requiring compensation

Question 21

Principle of takings

Answer 21

government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it directly appropriates private property for its own use, whether it’s real or personal property.

This principle applies to both physical and regulatory takings.

In the case of physical takings, the government’s duty to compensate is triggered regardless of the public benefit or economic impact on the owner (TEST: “ad hoc” factual inquiry considering factors such as the economic impact of a regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action)

Question 22

Penn Central [CASE ON POINT FOR TAKINGS]

Answer 22

Supreme Court ruled that the city’s refusal to allow the development into airspace was not a taking, based upon the three-part balancing test.

The Court noted that no “set formula” existed to determine, in all cases, whether compensation is constitutionally due for a government restriction of property.

Ordinarily, the Court must engage in “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.” The economic impact of the regulation, especially the degree of interference with investment-backed expectations, is of particular significance

it’s important to note that a regulatory restriction on use that does not entirely deprive an owner of property rights may not be a taking under the Penn Central decision.

Question 23

Penn Central Takings Test

Answer 23

The test involves an “ad hoc” factual inquiry that considers three primary factors:

(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner,

(2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and

(3) the character of the government action

Question 24

Kelo [TAKING]

Answer 24

Taking: easy and straightforward in Kelo case, it was just the exercise of eminent domain, using that free hold title for another purpose.

Instant Facts The City of New London condemned private property to be used for commercial, residential, and recreational purposes as part of an economic revitalization project.

Black Letter Rule Takings of private property for use by other private citizens pursuant to a carefully considered economic development plan intended for a public purpose are valid under the Fifth Amendment.

Question 25

Mahon [TAKING]

Answer 25

Instant Facts: A coal company challenges a state law which prohibited the company from mining in such a way as to cause subsidence of living structures.

Black Letter Rule: A regulation that severely restricts land use rights can constitute a taking, which is unconstitutional unless just compensation is paid by the government.

Question 26

Brandeis Dissent in Mahob

Answer 26

Unloosing poisonous gases. This is like a rule that says you cant mine under a house if in the process you create poisonous air in the house. You shouldn’t have to compensate the miner for not causing poisonous gases to be in the air.

Question 27

Katzenbach v. Morgan [14]

Answer 27

[precedent for interpreting the scope of Congress’ power under the Fourteenth Amendment ]

prohibiting the application of English literacy tests to persons educated in Puerto Rico, affirming Congress’s power under § 5 to enforce the Equal Protection Clause?

equated the scope of this authority with the broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause