Regulatory Takings Analysis

LOPZ Vs. RWQCB3

Independent Report for Shaunna Sullivan
In preparation to review actions related to Regulatory Takings
From the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund
Subcommittee on Regulatory Takings.

1
 ABSTRACT

The enclosed study is an assessment of the legal potential to prevail in a class action or
singular case for Regulatory Takings: The case would involve RWQCB/State Vs. A
Property Owner in the prohibition zone or Los Osos area of imposed construction
moratorium and now discharge moratorium treating the difference in economic impact
between zero discharge and proportional discharge as a regulatory taking that requires
compensation.

The Property owner could contest that the CDO’s do not meet the ‘”reasonable” litmus
test and do not “advance a legitimate public purpose” standard set by AGINS v.
TIBURON in that zero discharge is not supported by logical assumptions of basin plan
consistency and equal financial impacts among homeowners.

The CDO’s are not consistent with parallel standards rule for CEQA compliance
(because of pumping and hauling issues related to air pollution and traffic). And the
CDO’s have no precedence nationally under all EPA jurisdiction, do not use site specific
proof and run contrary to recent removal of an nitrogen requirement of .25mg/l in the
San Lorenzo Basin in RWQCB3 jurisdiction.

• The ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT zero discharge order is a regulatory taking

because it is logically inconsistent with the basin plan and the history of
enforcements under 83-13. Under the existing CDO order, RWQCB enforcement
deprives properties lesser than one acre of discharges in favor of properties over
one acre. Zero discharge advances no legitimate public interest because
proportional discharge would bring all users into conformance with the basin plan
and equitable financial burden with each other.

• Lesser properties are given an excess burden of complying with a zero discharge
order vs. one acre or more properties that are allowed a 375 gallon a day septic
discharge. Previous approved discharges for the Los Osos sewer project did not
have a zero discharge order.

• Proportional discharge by land area is the only way the burden to homeowners
can be equivocated and be consistent with the basin plan and past RWQCB
orders that have approved discharges to replenish groundwater.

• Proportional discharge by lot size removes the arbitrary distinction between the
PZ and the other basin users. That arbitrary distinction is not reflected by natural
occurrences of hydrology.

• Proportional discharge is more consistent with the parallel rules exemption from
CEQA because it avoids air pollution impacts from shipping wastes and meets
EPA guidelines for community compliance. EPA air standards would not allow
constant shipping of wastes from 5000 residences.

2
• The difference in economic burden between proportional discharge and zero
discharge for homeowners is a regulatory taking.

• The time line of the 2011 order to stop all discharges taints existing property
values when compared to other Costal communities. Asking homeowners to
perform actions that have already been denied by the APCD at hearing, burdens
the properties with an economic onus of potentially not being able to comply with
the order without abandoning the property use entirely in 2011.

• There are 2900 acres in the prohibition zone. One acre parcels are allowed with
ground separation to the water table hence there should be not a zero discharge
goal but a goal of 2900 X 375 gallons or approx 1,000,000 gallons a day divided
by the total population of 5000 residences equal 217 gallons a day. Reducing
discharge by 40% verifiable on water billing should exempt a homeowner from
prosecution because their discharge is then consistent with the basin plan as if
all parcels were one acre.

3
 LOS OSOS RT ARGUMENTS SPECIFIC TO
RIPENING FOR LITIGATION

1. A Los Osos regulatory takings suit can be continued to be ripened for filing by
either neutral action of the plaintiffs or by proactive actions of the plaintiffs.
Parties that have been issued a CDO meet the regulatory requirement of having
been required to act according to the provisions of the CDO that they received.
Random enforcement of further homeowners may qualify them for RT claims but
there remains doubt that the Court would hear their issues until a CDO was
issued to them.

2. Further, parties may request a Porter Cologne 13269 Waiver even if they haven’t
been given a CDO to answer to pollution issues. They then could choose to
comply in a manner they see fit to the point of proportional discharge yet contest
the zero discharge order in declaratory relief as a remedy to avoid further
litigation on takings over the zero discharge issue.

3. As with other declaratory relief filings, the Waiver and supplemental agreement is
a contract between the RWQCB and the Owner and as such could possibly be
ruled on with declaratory relief standing so that both parties can avoid protracted
litigation and receive first priority in the courts if pure DC is requested. Statutory
law requires that the Waterboard answer to discharger requests for voluntary
compliance and have limited say over the method. Given approval of other
discharges in the PZ, compliance and regulatory justice becomes an issue for
those denied a waiver. In court the homeowner’s waiver could be compared to
the Morro Bay waiver for raw sewerage outfall into the ocean.

4. The water board could make the choice to go on record as denying other
methods of compliance like composting toilets, urine sequestering, zero
discharge septic systems etc but they would risk scrutiny of non-compliance to
federal standards and EPA guidelines.

5. If a person was to file for a building permit for a composting toilet and urine
sequestering at the County level, the County is obligated to accept the permit
application and refer it to the water board as per their recent MOU. That would
start the clock for administrative review. Shawna could be party to such an
application. If the waterboard ignored the application over 30 days the owner
could file suit to request court approval under government code section 65941.5.
From the Counties permit application package:

“TIME LIMITS FOR PROCESSING AND PUBLIC

NOTICE DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS
California state law (California Government Code Section 65941.5) requires that the
county provide the following information to applicants when a permit application is
filed: Not later than 30 days after a land use or land division application is received,
the county must notify the project applicant or designated representative in writing
either that the application is complete, or that items are necessary to complete the
application. If you are not notified in writing, the application is considered complete.
Any land use or land division application must be approved or denied within three
months of adoption of the Negative Declaration or determination that the project is

4
 exempt, or within six months of the certification of an Environmental Impact Report.
The County of San Luis Obispo processes the land use application and the
environmental review concurrently, so these decisions are made simultaneously.
Questions about this process can be answered by your project planner. (Government
Code Sections 65943 and 65950 et. seq.)”

6. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- Economic difference and beneficial

use difference between Zero Vs. Proportional discharge AS A TAKING.

7. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- Property value comparisons Morro

Bay vs. Los Osos comps (See Attached)

8. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- 100 % Loss of beneficial use related
to residential occupancy in 2011, compensation required.

9. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- RWQCB3 basin plan enforcement

actions parity and property discrimination arguments. ( See attached discharge
orders and exempted tracts resolutions.)

10. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- Litmus for class action.

11. History of Regulatory Takings out of court settlements and settled cases
(See EO Analysis by GAO attached.).

12. Los Osos Regulatory Takings- California Law ( See Supreme Court briefs in Del
Monte Dunes Case that follows.)

13. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- Federal law.( See attached case law.)

14. Los Osos Regulatory Takings Arguments- Remedy and Compensation.

Remedy Analysis Required for Takings:
Remedy A- Compensation for loss of property value from comps comparison.
Remedy B- 100 % compensation for value for residential occupancy after 2011
Remedy C- Compensation for equipment to comply with zero discharge order
over cost of proportional discharge.
Remedy D- Compensation for total difference in compliance due to cancellation
of the SRF loan for the sewer project by the SWRCB financial office outside their
contract requirements.
Remedy D- Compensation for proximate negligence in being party to the
extension to the TSO due to contract irregularities for Tri-W. Water Board should
pay for part of the difference in compliance. ( New ruling by bankruptcy Court as
to who is responsible for the 6.5 million dollars.)

15. SPECIAL CASES-

What Follows is a draft proposal submitted to the RWQCB3 prosecution team by

Steve Paige for a 13269 Porter Cologne waiver via certified mail for urine
sequestration reflecting 20% water conservation and 80 % reduction in Nitrogen
discharge within the basin. This agreement allows the discharger to discharge
until 2017.

5
The structure of this agreement is grossly different than the ‘Shipe’ agreement in
that no admission of pollution is made, proportional discharge is assumed
equitable solution, and economic parity of proof is claimed by the discharger.

It could be argued that Denial of the supplemental agreement or any part of it

outlined below would trigger a valid pure claim for ‘declaratory relief’ as this is a
contractual agreement with the water board and the owner and satisfaction by
the Court would prevent protracted RT claims of both parties.

This takes the approval process for specific issues out of the hands of the water
board and allows airing of grievances and water board enforcement
inconsistencies in a public forum preparing the public for further RT claims.
Declaratory relief contractual differences could be so carefully crafted as to not
affect RT claims in the future.

6
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PC 13269 TEMPORARY 5 YEAR WAIVER
SETTING IN MOTION RIPENING FOR RT CLAIM BY MR. PAIGE:

(Draft, for Settlement Discussions Only)

The undersigned Parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. _______________________ own(s) and operate(s) an on-site wastewater

treatment and disposal system (Septic System) and nitrogen sequestering
system at ________________________________(Site) in Los Osos,
California.

A. PC 13269 TEMPORARY WAIVER TIMELINE

2. The Site is a residence located within the prohibition zone established by

Resolution No. 83-13. The Septic System consists of a septic tank that
discharges wastewater to an on-site subsurface disposal facility.
______________________ is/are referred to in this Order as “Discharger.”

Said discharger has made reasonable, energy conserving, and economically

relevant efforts to remove waterborne nitrogen from the sites discharge by a
method described in this agreement and exhibits.
1. This agreement is mutually signed then preparation of equipment is
completed.
2. When the discharger receives the status of final inspection from the
County of San Luis Obispo for parallel waste sequestering improvements,
the discharger will record a deed restriction described in Exhibit A,
3. After proof of recording of said deed restriction and sequestering manual
the Prosecution Team will issue a 13269 temporary five year waiver for
actions and levies existing and proposed by the Water board against the
discharger within 60 days.
4. When a sewer connection is available to the discharger, the Water board
may cancel the waver and this agreement.

B. TEMPORARY WAIVER VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

7
3. The discharger will verify by pumping and shipping tickets and test of the
sequestered waste for total waterborne nitrogen. At each pumping from the
sequestering tank the log of the volume of the waste will be sent to the Water
board or designated third party by letter or electronic submission. The total
nitrogen in the waste product within the sequestering tank will be tested yearly by
a certified laboratory and that a report of the nitrogen density will be sent to the
RWQCB at the address below. Both parties may agree to electronic submission
of compliance.

C. SPECIAL SEQUESTERING REQUIREMENTS FOR WAIVER

4. The Site has or will install a second waste disposal system as per approved
plans and building permits with the County of San Luis Obispo (Exhibit A). It has
a standard septic system and a parallel plumbing system that collects and stores
human liquid waste. Stored liquid waste from a separate holding tank will be
then shipped from the prohibition zone by a C42 licensed contractor to an
approved disposal facility and a log of pumped volume is kept by the homeowner
and submitted to the water board when pumped. These actions are in addition to
requirements to pump the main septic tank included within this agreement.
Further a deed restriction with a manual for its function as exhibit has been filed
with the County of San Luis Obispo (Exhibit B) to inform any future homeowner.
Waste generated at the Site includes human waste and wastewater from toilets
and from domestic activities such as bathing, laundry, dishwashing with no wet
disposal of sink garbage and no urine included in the waste stream. The
remaining waste is discharged to the Septic System without change during the
five year waiver period.

5. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s prosecution staff
(Staff Prosecution Team) contends that liquid waste then discharges from the
Septic System and eventually to groundwater. The Prosecution Team has
arrived at this conclusion using methods other than ‘point source’ measurements
on the owners parcel of land. The Board instead uses community wide data,
generic wastewater data, and the assumption of no soil column decontamination
for the boards own economic benefit. For the purpose of this agreement the
discharger accepts the Boards assessment of groundwater conditions for
nitrogen contamination. The discharger and Board agree to use generic EPA
data on waste water constituents to justify performance of this control plan for the
owners economic benefit in a manner similar to the boards use of community
wide data, generic discharge data, and soil column assumptions. Thereby both
parties have equitable relief from prosecution and compliance expenses.

6. The Staff Prosecution Team has recommended enforcement actions in the

form of cease and desist orders pursuant to Water Code section 13301 be
taken against the Discharger and others based on the requirements applicable
to the Septic System set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast

8
Basin (Basin Plan). Consistent with this agreement the Discharger shall be given
a temporary waiver for a period of five years as long as the nitrogen waste
sequestering and shipping continues in a manner outlined herein and in Exhibits
noted or to such a time when the occupant’s property is attached to a completed
community sewer.

7. The Discharger has entered into this Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with
the Staff Prosecution Team to address Estero Bay basin plan groundwater
quality issues. And issues raised by the board for the prohibition zone properties
and wishes to cooperate with the Staff Prosecution Team to focus on an energy
efficient and resource sensitive, and economic, temporary solution. The
Discharger and the Staff Prosecution Team are referred to collectively as the
“Parties”. The water board agrees to levy no fines against the owner of the
property until such a time no sequestering is taking place on the property.

10. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed an admission of liability on the

part of the Discharger. The discharger does not admit liability for all other
remaining constituents in the discharge. All actions to affect other pollutants are
consolatory. The discharger agrees without liability or assumption of pollution to
a percentage of discharge after the first five year waiver period. Proportional
discharge is perceived by the discharger to equivocate all discharges so that
lesser properties under one acre are consistent with larger properties with
respect to Basin Plan Compliance for discharge and equitable economic impact.
The benefit of the proportional discharge waiver for the owner is balanced by the
net reduction in nitrogen contamination the board seeks.

D. REDUCED DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS AFTER COMPLETED FIVE

YEAR WAIVER PERIOD

11. The board shall extend the waiver period after 5 years if for whatever reason
another method of compliance is not Available. With the issuance of the waiver
extension the discharger further agrees to reduce discharge pollutant quantity
determined by percentage where the smaller lot area of _______ Sf is divided by
the Sf. one acre lot area equaling ________percent of discharge for a one acre
lot as previously approved. The discharger agrees to supply the water board
with verification of this change, method of validation, and recorded deed
restriction explaining the change within 90 days of the above date. Existing basin
and prohibition zone discharges for a residence on one acre is 375 gallons per
day for a single residence and 750 gallons per day with a residence and
previously approved secondary housing consistent with past implementation of
the basin plan. Both parties agree to characterize septic pollutant content
generically using the EPA On Site Wastewater Handbook or engineered product
studies and or National Sanitary Foundation studies relative to NSF SEC. 40, 41
and 46 for the purpose of characterizing pollutant reduction by conservation,
sequestering, or treatment.

9
12. THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO SEQUESTER LIQUID
HUMAN WASTE OR URINE AND REMOVE IT FROM THE WATER BASIN
UNTIL ANOTHER METHOD OF NITROGEN REDUCTION IN THE WASTE
WATER IS PROPOSED. In addition the owner is required to implement reduced
proportional discharge after Jan, 1, 2011 or later herein described by four
methods mentioned:

i) The owner may conserve water use by the owner or occupant verifiable by
water billing to the percentage of discharge required.

ii) The owner may reduce the amount of pollutants in the waste discharge by
on site treatment provided the site meets groundwater separation standards
described by the County of San Luis Obispo septic criteria or is engineered.

iii) The owner may install a greywater system under permit as per State
approved Greywater Standards: APPENDIX G, GRAYWATER SYSTEMS
Title 24, Part 5, California Administrative Code to exempt that portion of
discharge from the proportional discharge requirement. Waterborne nitrogen
in random greywater sampling may not exceed 7ml/l average.

iiii) The owner may choose any other method or methods to make the
smaller parcel pollutant proportion of the waste stream consistent by
percentage of total with that allowed for one acre parcels as described in
RWQCB3 DRAFT STAFF REPORT FOR REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH
31, 2000 Prepared on February 29, 2000 ITEM NUMBER: 16

F. DISCHARGE BANKING FOR PROPORTIONAL DISCHARGE AFTER

FIRST WAIVER PERIOD

13. For the sake of this agreement ‘water banking’ or conservation is directly to
related ‘discharge banking’. If the owner reduces water consumption by 10% or
more that ‘discharge’ saved will be banked and added to proportional discharge
after 2011 or later if the sewer is not completed as per a future TSO for the
County project under AB 2701. Proof of reduced discharge is by comparing pre-
settlement water bills from the year previous on a monthly basis to new bills. The
owner must reach a 10% conservation level from matched previous years billing
associated by date of signing of this document to receive the credit. Reporting is
required by showing water billing to the board. At the end of the first waiver
period, as described herein, all months that qualify as over 10% reduction in
discharge will be averaged and the average will be allowed as an addition to the
proportional discharge until the sewer is connected to the property or other
method of discharge is certified.

CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT

10
15. The water board so states that this Agreement results from action being
taken for the protection of natural resources and the environment and as such is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act if proven
to be in compliance with (Sections 15307, 15308, 15043 and 15321, Chapter 3,
Division 6, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, “CEQA”) and all other
sections of Title 14. In addition, the Septic System is an existing on site facility
that may be covered under provisions of federal law and this Agreement allows
no expansion of discharge beyond that previously existing system so the actions
required herein are exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Section 15301,
Chapter 3, Division 6, Title 14, California Code of Regulations).

16. The language of this Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board).

The Discharger has the choice of with the following requirements:

17. I the event that that a community sewer is available,

a. Upon completion of a sewer project, The owner may agree to connect to the
community sewer but still reserves the right to sequester urine and manage its
contents with third parties as a recyclable commodity.

b. After the Water Board provides notice of the expected availability

date to the Discharger and no later than 90 days before the expected
availability date, the Discharger may submit the following information; either:

i. A statement that the Discharger agrees to connect to the community

wastewater treatment plant and sewer system within 60 days after the
community wastewater collection and treatment system becomes
available for connection to the Site; or

ii. A statement that the Discharger agrees to connect to the community

wastewater treatment plant and sewer system within 60 days after the
community wastewater collection and treatment system becomes
available for connection to the Site but will continue to sequester and ship
urine to third parties licensed to handle, detoxify, and discharge liquid
human waste. All mineral rights are retained by the owner for minerals
within the waste stream to the point at which they leave the owner’s
property.

iii. The owner may propose and alternative method of compliance. Any
proposed alternative must be adequate to meet standards of agreed to
discharges described in this agreement from the Septic System by the
proportional discharge date and must include a proposed monitoring and
reporting plan. If the alternative involves a discharge of waste that could

11
 affect waters of the State, the report shall be in the form of a report of
waste discharge. “Waters of the State” is defined in Water Code Section
13050(e). “Report of waste discharge” means are port that complies with
Water Code Section 13260 and, if applicable, Water Code Section 13376.

ADDITIONAL INTERIM COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPTIC

CONTENT TESTING AND PUMPING IF SO REQUIRED.

19. By three months after the entry of this Agreement, the Discharger shall

(1) have the contents of the Septic System pumped or certify that the Septic
System has been tested in conformance with EPA standards for solids and scum
layers that require no pumping or is pumped if so required.

(2) obtain a report by the County of San Luis Obispo or a septic tank pumper that
either describes recommended repairs to the Septic System or states that no
repairs are necessary.
If the Discharger disagrees with any repair recommendation,
the Discharger shall provide justification to the Executive Officer no later than
four months after the entry of this Agreement explaining why the repairs are not
necessary. Unless the Staff Prosecution Team agrees, in writing, that any
recommended repair is not necessary, the Discharger shall provide
documentation no later than the first day of the next full calendar month
following 180 days after the entry of this Agreement, that the Discharger has
complied with these pumping, inspection and repair requirements. Until the
community wastewater collection and treatment system is available to the Site
and/or all unpermitted discharges from the Septic System cease, the
Discharger shall have three months from every third anniversary of the entry of
this Agreement to satisfy the same pumping, inspection and repair
requirements.

(See Section C. 6.)

For the purposes of this Agreement, “entry of this Agreement” shall mean the
date that the Executive Officer executes this Agreement. The Staff Prosecution
Team agrees that it will notify the Discharger of the date of entry and serve the
Discharger by mail with a copy of the fully executed Agreement after execution
by the Executive Officer.

D. PROVISIONS

22. All reports, receipts, notifications and other documents the Discharger
submits pursuant to this Agreement (including Paragraph A.2 of this
Agreement) shall be accompanied by a statement from the Discharger
stating: “I certify under penalty of perjury that the attached documents were

12
prepared at my request or under my supervision, and to the best of my
knowledge are true, accurate and complete. I understand that there are
significant penalties for providing false or incomplete information, including
the possibility of criminal fines or imprisonment.”

23. Discharger shall inform any subsequent owner or occupant at the Site of
this Agreement and provide a copy of the Agreement. For the purposes of
this Agreement, the Discharger understands that he or she is liable for the
use of the Septic System, while the Discharger owns the Site, including but
not limited to use of the Septic System by any tenant or any other person
occupying the Site.

24. Compliance dates may be extended by the Executive Officer provided there
is reasonable progress in implementing a wastewater collection and
treatment system for the community. The Executive Officer may also
extend the due date for any interim or reporting requirements for
circumstances beyond the Discharger’s reasonable control. In the event
that the Regional Board or the Executive Officer issues any order to the
County of San Luis Obispo or the Los Osos Community Services District
which includes a time schedule for the construction and operation of a
community wastewater collection and treatment system (Time Schedule
Order) which is intended to serve the Site, the Executive Officer will revise
the compliance dates in this Agreement to be consistent with any
compliance dates in such Time Schedule Order.

25. Notifications

All written submissions and notifications shall be provided to the parties as

follows:
For the Staff Prosecution Team:
Los Osos Staff Prosecution Team
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
For the Discharger:
__________________
Any Party may change the designee or address for notifications but no such
change is effective until it is actually received by the party sought to be charged
with its contents.

26. Modifications

This Agreement may be modified only upon written consent by the Parties hereto
and the approval of the Executive Officer or as provided for by law.
In the event that the Staff Prosecution Team enters into a subsequent agreement
with any discharger in the prohibition zone which is set forth on the Prohibition
Boundary Map, Attachment A of Central Coast Water Board Resolution No. 83-

13
13, Revision and Amendment of Water Quality Control Plan by the Addition of a
Prohibition of Waste Discharge from Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Within
the Los Osos/Baywood Park Area, San Luis Obispo County which contains terms
which are materially different from those in this Agreement and which may be
applicable to the Site or Discharger, the Discharger may request that this
Agreement be amended to include those terms, and upon such request, the Staff
Prosecution Team will make those modifications and submit them for approval
and execution by the Executive Officer as a modification of the Agreement. This
paragraph does not apply to terms in any subsequent agreements which are
based on any unique personal circumstances applicable to the other discharger.

27. Remedies for Failure to Comply with this agreement

The Parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced as an
order issued by the Executive Officer pursuant to California Water Code section
section 13269.

Neither of the Parties waive any rights or defenses that they may have with
regard to any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
The Staff Prosecution Team agrees that it will consider the cooperation of the
Discharger in entering into this Agreement, as compared with any other
discharger who has been issued a cease and desist order or any adjudicated
order, or who is recalcitrant or non-cooperative, as a factor in such action
including the timing of such action, and the amount of any liability that should be
imposed through such enforcement action.

Prior to the initiation of any formal action to enforce this Agreement or the Basin
Plan Prohibition against the Discharger (except for actions to address an
imminent or substantial threat to water quality or an emergency requiring
immediate action to protect the public health, welfare or safety), the Staff
Prosecution Team agrees that it will meet-and-confer with the Discharger or a
group of other settling dischargers regarding such action, and the
Parties will negotiate in good faith to try and resolve any proposed enforcement
action. No negotiated resolution of any enforcement action is required or
guaranteed by this provision.

The failure of the Staff Prosecution Team to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall neither be deemed a waiver of such provision nor in any way
affect the validity of this Agreement. The failure of the Staff Prosecution Team to
enforce any such provision shall not preclude it from later enforcing the same or
any other provision of the Agreement or the Basin Plan. Nor oral advice,
guidance, or suggestions or comments by employees or officials of any Party
regarding matters covered by this Agreement shall be construed to relieve any
Party of its obligations required by this Agreement.

28. Termination of Agreement and waiver

14
This Agreement shall terminate when the Discharger:

1) Connects the Site to a community wastewater collection and treatment system

and both parties agree to terminate the waiver.

2 Develops and on site nitrogen removal treatment system with a gross pollutant
discharge not to exceed the above designation compared to an acre of land and
both parties agree to terminate the waiver at a date later than five years from the
issuance of waiver or subsequent renewals of the waiver.

3) is no longer the owner of the Site provided the Discharger has complied with
Paragraph C.3 and C.4, above.

29. Authority to Enter Agreement

Each signatory to this Agreement certified that he or she is fully authorized by the
Party that he or she presents to enter into this Agreement, and to execute it on
behalf of the Party represented and to legally bind that party. The Agreement is
binding on the Parties and each of their respective successors or assigns.

30. Counterpart Signatures

This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterpart, and when a copy
is signed by the authorized representative of each Party, the stipulation shall be
effective as if a single document were signed by all Parties.

IT IS SO AGREED:

______________________________________________

Harvey C. Packard
On behalf of the Staff Prosecution Team
IT IS SO ORDERED:

_____________________ _________________________
Executive Officer Date
Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board

END

15
 CASE HISTORIES OF REGULATORY TAKINGS

Case History of regulatory takings suits and

developed legal methods of proof.

Takings law has developed out of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, which states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation." Actions invoking this amendment are usually filed in the United States
Court of Federal Claims and state courts.

How the Courts Evaluate Regulatory Takings Claims

When the courts evaluate regulatory takings claims under the Fifth Amendment, they
apply the legal reasoning, or jurisprudence, developed by the Supreme Court in previous
decisions and interpretations of the Constitution.(1) The first decision by the Supreme
Court that a land-use regulation violated the Fifth Amendment' s takings clause occurred
in 1922.(2) In that decision, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, the Supreme Court held
that a Pennsylvania state law forbidding mining that might cause subsidence was a
regulatory taking.(3) (In subsidence caused by mining operations, the ground sinks,
damaging structures on the surface.) Writing for the Court in the case, Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes captured an essential aspect of the controversy over regulatory takings.
On the one hand, as he wrote, "[t]he 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."
On the other hand, "[g]overnment could hardly go on if to some extent values incident to
property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general
law."(4) Since that decision, most of the debate over regulatory takings has focused on
what constitutes going "too far."
Decisions by the Supreme Court provide guidelines for how courts today should
determine whether government actions constitute takings of private property. According
to that body of law, some government actions are clearly takings and others are clearly
not. But some actions fall between those two extremes, occupying a murky middle
ground that exists, to some extent, because the Supreme Court has never developed a
specific test or formula for what constitutes a taking. As the Court noted in the
Pennsylvania Coal Company decision, "this Court, quite simply, has been unable to
develop any ' set formula'for determining when ' justice and fairness'require that
economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather
than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons." The Court went on to
observe that "whether a particular restriction will be rendered invalid by the government' s
failure to pay for any losses proximately caused by it depends largely ' upon the particular
circumstances [in that] case.' "(5)
If it is unclear whether a government' s action is a regulatory taking, the courts usually
weigh a variety of factors, balancing them on a case-by-case basis.(6) Those factors
include:
• The character of the government' s action;
• The extent to which the action interferes with reasonable, investment-backed
expectations; and
• The action' s economic impact.

The Character of the Government's Regulatory Action

16
In considering this factor, the courts weigh the nature and extent of the impact of the
regulatory action. If the government has interfered with certain fundamental property
rights, a court may find that action to be a regulatory taking. Among those rights is the
owner' s right to exclude other people from the property. Hence, the courts almost always
find that a permanent physical occupation is a taking of private property. (A few
examples are the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, a requirement to wire
apartment buildings for cable television, and river management that leads to regular
flooding of private property.)(7)
Another fundamental property right whose restriction may trigger the finding of a taking
is the right to pass property to one' s heirs. In 1987, in Hodel v. Irving, the Supreme Court
held that a federal statute requiring certain small interests in Indian land to revert to the
tribe rather than to heirs violated the takings clause because it interfered with that
fundamental property right.(8)
When a court investigates the character of a regulatory action, it also explores the
action' s purpose and rationale. If an action does not "substantially advance legitimate
state [that is, government] interests," the court is more likely to find a taking.(9) The court
is far less likely to do so if the purpose of the action is to protect public health and safety
or to prevent the creation of a nuisance or the "noxious" use of a piece of property.(10) Of
course, courts differ on the activities that they consider to be advancing legitimate public
purposes.
Courts also examine the connection between the regulatory action that a property owner
is challenging and the rationale for the regulatory authority. If the action is not closely
related to the harm that the government is allegedly trying to control, the courts may find
the action to be a taking. For instance, if the government simply demands an easement
across private property in order to allow access to a public beach, that action is probably
a taking. But if the government tells a property owner that he or she must grant an
easement across the property as a condition for a building permit that the owner has
applied for, the government' s easement demand is probably not a taking. However, the
easement in that instance must be furthering the governmental interests that would
otherwise justify the denial of the permit.
The situation would be different if the easement demanded by the government as a
condition for issuing the building permit did not substantially advance the public purpose
underlying the permitting program, which gives the government the authority to deny
building permits. In those circumstances, the demand might constitute a taking--just as it
would have if the government had simply demanded the easement.(11) (This example
gives some indication of the complex issues that the courts must deal with in judging the
merits of claims of regulatory takings.)
The law applying to regulatory takings is implicitly concerned with balancing potentially
disproportionate harms and benefits. However, one area of the law in which that concern
is explicit is the use of so-called exactions and dedications by state and local
governments. Under those mechanisms, governments demand certain preconditions,
payments, and land set-asides before they will allow particular uses of property. In that
area of property law, the Supreme Court has held that if the severity of the conditions
that must be met to secure a permit is disproportionate to the harm being prevented, the
conditions may constitute a taking.(12) For example, it may be reasonable for a local
government to refuse to issue a permit to build a store unless the owner provides
enough parking spaces for prospective customers, so that overall public parking near the
store remains adequate. But it might be unreasonable--and thus a taking--to make the
permit conditional on the owner' s providing a large, multistory parking garage whose
capacity would vastly exceed the possible parking needs of the customers of the store.

17
Interference of the Action with Reasonable, Investment-Backed Expectations
In considering this factor, the courts determine whether and to what extent a
government' s regulatory action may conflict with property owners'reasonable
expectations about what they can do with their property--as reflected in part by the
investment they have made in it.(13) The more evidence there is that the property owner
should have or could have reasonably expected the government' s action, the greater the
likelihood that the courts will not consider the regulation to be a taking. The latter is
especially true if the owner' s investment in the property indicated such an expectation.(14)
Consider, for example, a person who bought property composed of wetlands in the mid-
1960s and one who bought such property in 1998. In the mid-1960s, there were few or
no restrictions on filling wetlands, and the buyer would have paid a price that reflected
the property' s relatively unrestricted development opportunities. In contrast, the person
who bought wetlands in 1998 would have paid a price reflecting the likelihood that
federal regulation might thwart (or at least limit) development. In terms of a taking claim,
the courts would probably find that the mid-1960s buyer had a reasonable, investment-
backed expectation of being able to develop the property and that government
regulations preventing that development could well be considered a taking. The 1998
buyer, however, would probably lack a reasonable, investment-backed expectation; in
that instance, the court might well decide that regulations precluding development were
not a taking.

The Economic Impact of the Government's Action

To assess economic impact, the courts ask what proportion of the total value of the
property was eliminated by the government' s regulatory action. Extreme reductions in
value may--or may not--incline a court to judge the action to be a taking.(15) No court has
ever articulated a specific reduction-in-value threshold--except for an action that almost
totally eliminates the property' s value, which is likely to be a taking barring certain
exceptions. Even in cases that involve apparently severe reductions in value, sometimes
exceeding 80 percent, the courts have not always found that a taking occurred, typically
because they weigh other factors more heavily.(16)
Measuring a reduction in value requires a decision about what property to include in the
calculation. Should it be the entire property and all the rights associated with it? Or
should the analysis be limited to that part of the property or to particular property rights
that the regulation directly affects? The Supreme Court has stated that the calculation
should be made on the basis of the "parcel as a whole" and not on the basis of the
affected portion.(17) In practice, what constitutes the property "as a whole" is not always
obvious (see Chapter 3). In most situations, reduction-in-value calculations based on the
entire property will be proportionately smaller than calculations based only on the
affected portion.
At times, the courts evaluate the economic impact of a regulatory restriction by
examining the remaining permissible uses of the property. If a government' s regulatory
action leaves a property with no "economically viable use," a court is likely to consider
that action a taking, subject to certain exceptions such as the protection of health and
human safety or the prevention of a nuisance.(18) For example, in Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, the Supreme Court found that a building setback requirement
that largely prohibited the development of a property was a taking because it left the
owner with no economically viable use for the land. However, since few regulatory
actions eliminate all economic uses of a property, takings cases are rarely decided
solely on the issue of a reduction in the property' s value.

18
How a court will decide a particular taking claim is often difficult to predict. At different
times, in different settings, and on the basis of the unique set of facts in a specific case,
the courts have described, considered, and weighted the factors that make up the
takings jurisprudence in varying ways. And lower courts, such as the federal district
courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sometimes confront unique situations in
which the Supreme Court' s precedents provide little guidance.

Jurisdiction: Where and When Are Takings Claims Filed?

Before a court actually hears and judges the merits of a taking claim based on a
government' s regulatory action, certain timing and jurisdictional issues may arise. The
property owner must decide on the appropriate court in which to file his or her suit.
Another consideration is when to bring the claim. The legal doctrines of ripeness,
abstention, and exhaustion of remedies apply to all lawsuits filed in a court, but their role
in the area of regulatory takings is especially prominent. In the eyes of property owners,
those doctrines establish an onerous barrier to their ability to get a court to decide the
merits of their claim.

The Ripeness Doctrine

No matter which court is involved, a claim must meet the standards established for
"ripeness." Ripeness is a generally applicable legal doctrine that ensures that a court will
hear no case "before its time." In other words, a case will be heard only when the court
has before it the details of a concrete, factual situation that will permit it to engage in an
intelligent, reasoned balancing of the rights of an individual and the interests of the
government.
In the context of a regulatory taking claim, the Supreme Court has held that a claim is
not "ripe" for adjudication "until the government entity charged with implementing the
regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to
the property at issue."(19) Thus, the ripeness requirement means that courts typically will
not consider a regulatory taking claim until an agency has made a final decision on a
specific piece of property and the owner has felt the concrete effects of that decision.
Courts can then determine the exact nature of the restrictions being imposed and their
specific effects on the property in question. In the words of the Supreme Court in 1986,
"it follows from the nature of a regulatory taking claim that an essential prerequisite to its
assertion is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of
development legally permitted on the subject property. A court cannot determine
whether a regulation has gone ' too far'unless it knows how far the regulation goes."(20)
In rare instances, a court may agree to hear a taking claim (that is, it may find the claim
ripe for adjudication) before a law or regulation has been applied to any specific piece of
property. In such cases, property owners assert that the very language of the law or
regulation is a taking and its application to a particular property is irrelevant. Those
cases are sometimes called "facial challenges," because they challenge a law on its
face. Facial challenges meet the ripeness standard because the language of the statute
alone makes them ripe in the eyes of the court. Such claims are very hard to win,
however, because of the great difficulty of convincing a court that a law or regulation is
so inflexible and its effects always so severe that the particular circumstances of the
property owner are irrelevant to the court' s conclusions.

Ripeness, Exhaustion of Remedies, and Abstention for Claims Involving State or

Local Governments
Nearly all state constitutions contain provisions similar to the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment. For that reason, property owners who allege that an action by a state or

19
local government has taken their property can file a taking claim either in a state court,
based on the state constitution, or in a federal court, based on the U.S. Constitution. The
relations between federal and state courts are governed in part by self-imposed
guidelines that the courts have established to minimize conflict and to ensure that claims
are not brought to federal courts if they can be resolved at the state level. Thus, federal
courts may require property owners who are making claims as a result of state or local
government regulations to exhaust all existing judicial and administrative approaches for
obtaining compensation at the state level before they consider such claims ripe for a
hearing in federal court.
Under the abstention doctrine, the federal courts may abstain from exercising jurisdiction
over a taking claim. Abstention typically occurs if the interpretation of an issue of state
law relevant to the claim is unclear and that interpretation, once made, might eliminate
the need to decide the federal constitutional issue. Federal courts do not invoke
abstention to avoid considering a claim in instances in which the state law is "settled"
(that is, the interpretation is clear) or in cases in which the state'
s action is
unconstitutional regardless of how the state court interprets the law. Abstention
postpones federal jurisdiction; it does not preclude it indefinitely.

Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

The Tucker Act of 1887 lays out the jurisdictions of the various federal courts that affect
claims related to takings.(21) The act gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction
over most large money claims against the United States. Thus, a property owner who
wishes to obtain just compensation of more than $10,000 from the federal government
for a regulatory taking must file the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Claims
involving less than $10,000 may be filed either in the Court of Federal Claims or in
federal district courts.
Whether the U.S. Court of Federal Claims will consider the merits of a taking claim may
hinge on whether the property owner is challenging the validity of the federal action in
the district court. In the district court, the claimant may try to overturn the agency'
s
action, arguing that the action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law."(22) But pursuing that claim in the district court is
likely to postpone and may in the end preclude the Court of Federal Claims'
consideration of a taking claim seeking compensation--because the court will not award
compensation for a permanent taking on the basis of an unlawful federal action.(23)
Typically, state courts hear and decide takings claims that stem from restrictions
imposed by state and local governments, but property owners may also bring those
claims in federal district courts as a so-called Section 1983 action under the Civil Rights
Act of 1871.(24) However, in many instances, before a property owner may pursue a
taking claim in federal court against a state or local government (whether or not the
claim is based on section 1983), he or she must exhaust approaches for obtaining
compensation at the state level.
The various doctrines that govern how the courts deal with regulatory takings claims in
many cases translate into a lengthy legal process that is potentially fraught with
difficulties for property owners. Criticisms of the current approach abound, and calls for
changing the whole system have come in a steady stream before the Congress.

Criticisms of the Status Quo

As noted earlier, regulatory takings claims against the federal government are
infrequently brought and rarely successful. Some people interpret those statistics to
show that the government seldom violates the takings clause. But to advocates of
property rights proposals, those facts suggest that the current legal system is unfair and

20
contrary to the spirit of the Constitution's prescripts. Proponents of changing the system
criticize the current approach to takings on several fronts. They argue that it is often
difficult to get a court to hear a claim on its merits and that when claims are heard, they
rarely succeed. Nevertheless, it is difficult to predict how any one claim will be decided.
Furthermore, they contend that the current system provides inadequate incentives and
procedures for regulators to avoid actions that might constitute a taking.

Successful Takings Claims Are Few and Difficult to Achieve

The scarcity of successful takings claims may be attributable in large part to two factors.
First, getting a court to hear a taking claim can be difficult. Second, courts evaluate
claims according to a body of case law that is generally tolerant of actions by
government that address legitimate public objectives. With that foundation for their
decisions, courts rarely find that a regulatory taking has occurred.

Many Cases Are Dismissed Without a Decision on Their Merits. As the earlier
discussion on ripeness noted, courts may refuse to judge the merits of a claim unless it
is ripe for adjudication. Reaching that stage is not always easy. Most regulatory
agencies do not define generally permissible levels of property use; usually, they decide
whether a specific use of the land is permissible and whether to grant that permission--in
some cases, by approving or denying an application for a permit. If the agency rejects
the first proposed use of the land, the property owner may modify the proposal and
reapply for the permit. Thus, multiple applications may be necessary to determine
precisely what property uses the agency will allow.(25) And if the agency has an
administrative process for appealing regulatory decisions, the courts may require
property owners to go through that process before they are willing to hear the case.(26)
For a property owner, reaching such a stage of finality and specificity is often time-
consuming and costly. Those factors, together with the delays and expense that in many
instances are associated with litigation, may deter people with modest means or modest
claims from pursuing legal remedies. Indeed, for many property owners, takings litigation
is more likely to worsen their situation than to improve it. Owners who win a claim
receive compensation, including an amount that covers some legal expenses. But
owners who lose bear their costs of litigation, which can be substantial.
Criticism of the courts'application of the ripeness doctrine and of the requirement for
exhausting other remedies stems primarily from takings claims involving land-use
restrictions of local governments.(27) The burden that the ripeness doctrine imposes on
takings claims based on federal regulations is less obvious because the Court of Federal
Claims is usually willing to consider claims after only a single permit has been denied.
Even so, some people argue that getting into court is still costly and time-consuming
because getting through the permitting process even once can be burdensome,
particularly for permits related to the Endangered Species Act.(28)
Gauging the extent of the barriers that property owners face when they try to get a taking
claim heard can be difficult--whether the claim is being made at the federal or the state
or local level. Information concerning the number, nature, and outcome of takings claims
at the state level is quite limited. Information concerning the number, nature, and
outcome of takings claims at the federal level is scarce as well, but some observers
suggest that the federal courts often dismiss cases on the basis of a lack of ripeness, the
abstention doctrine, or a failure to exhaust administrative or state remedies.(29)

Federal Compensation Awards Are Infrequent. For the most part, a regulatory taking
claim is an unlikely source of compensation for the perceived adverse effects of federal
regulation. Once a court hears a claim, it usually decides the suit in favor of the

21
government. Large reductions in the property' s value notwithstanding, courts typically
reject takings claims out of deference to the public interest behind the government' s
action or for other reasons.

Regulatory Takings Can Be Difficult to Predict

The outcome of any particular regulatory taking claim can be hard to predict. One reason
for that uncertainty is that the courts'inquiries depend heavily on the facts of each case,
and all of the relevant facts may not be known until a court is ready to hear the case.
That point may be reached many years after the use of a property was first restricted by
a government' s regulatory action. Once the necessary information is available, the court
must weigh the facts in the light of the factors that the Supreme Court has offered in
guidance. A frequent criticism of the current approach is that it is difficult to predict which
factors the court will emphasize and how they will be applied.(30)

Agencies Regulate Excessively Because They Have Inadequate Incentives to

Avoid Takings
One way to limit regulatory takings is for agencies to avoid the actions that may cause
them. Some critics of the current approach to takings argue that when agencies are
making regulatory decisions, they fail to adequately weigh the consequences of their
proposed actions for property rights. For that reason, say those opponents, agencies'
decisions in many instances unnecessarily infringe on those rights.
Critics of the status quo suggest two reasons for such infringements: lack of forethought
and lack of incentive. They argue that agencies should be required to better analyze the
implications of proposed regulatory decisions to determine how those decisions might
affect property rights and to identify other options that might lessen the burden on
property owners. Moreover, the critics point out that agencies lack a financial incentive to
avoid actions that result in takings because usually they do not pay the compensation
awards that their regulatory actions sometimes generate.

Regulatory Takings after Lucas

Henry N. Butler
Henry N. Butler is the Koch Distinguished Teaching Professor of Law and Economics at
the University of Kansas.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution concludes with the Takings
Clause—"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
There are several common-sense reasons why this clause was included in the Bill of
Rights. First, protection of property rights (through the public use and compensation
requirements) encourages private investment and promotes economic prosperity.
Second, compensation is equitable in the sense that no one individual or group is forced
to bear a disproportionately large share of the costs of a government program. Third, the
public use requirement could limit the scope of government activities to those that
involve primarily public, rather than private (special interest), benefits. Fourth, the
compensation requirement serves as an important restraint by requiring the government
to pay for all the resources that it commands. Although this list of rationales is not
necessarily exhaustive, it does suggest that a consideration of these rationales could
provide some guidance to the application and interpretation of the Takings Clause.
Unfortunately, judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions is never so
straightforward.

22
Like many areas of constitutional jurisprudence, judicial interpretation of the Takings
Clause has created a confused and baffling body of law. For example, the Supreme
Court has emasculated the "public use" requirement to the point that "public use" means
whatever the taking government says is a public use. Nevertheless, when government
physically invades private property, it is clear that a taking has occurred and that
compensation is owed to the property holder.
What is not clear is the extent to which the Takings Clause offers property owners
protection against reductions in property value caused by government regulations—so-
called regulatory takings. In many instances, especially land-use regulations, the effect
of regulations is to impose substantial costs on some property owners in the name of
achieving what the government has determined to be a public benefit. Thus, many
regulatory-induced reductions in property value are potentially characterized as takings
subject to the just compensation provisions of the Takings Clause. Indeed,
compensation for a typical regulatory taking would seem to fit within the primary
justifications for the Takings Clause—encouraging investment, preventing inequitable
treatment, and restraining government.
Nevertheless, this approach to property rights and regulatory takings offers too much—
almost every government action impacts property values, and it would be totally
unworkable to require compensation every time a government action causes a
diminution in value. But that does not mean that there should be no protection against
regulatory takings. Proponents of greater property rights protection have long recognized
the need for a principled approach to regulatory takings that is consistent with the overall
purposes of the Takings Clause.

Property Rights in the Reagan-Bush Supreme Court

Prospects for greater protection for private property owners looked bright as the
Reagan-Bush appointees took control of the Supreme Court. However, property rights
proponents'expectations have been treated to a roller coaster ride by recent Supreme
Court decisions. Beginning with three cases in 1987, the Court seemed to signal the
start of a new era in which greater protection from regulatory takings would guarantee
property owners compensation in the event that government actions reduced the value
of their property. In fact, the 1987 decisions prompted President Reagan to issue an
Executive Order calling for a "regulatory takings review" of all new federal regulations.
The prospect of greater protection of property rights appeared even brighter when the
Supreme Court agreed to review the South Carolina case of Lucas v. South Carolina
Costal Council. Anticipation of an important decision affording greater protection against
government action was reflected in numerous law review articles and the popular press.
But even before Lucas was announced in 1992, the Court lowered expectations with its
decision in Yee v. City of Escondido, which rejected a property owner' s efforts to expand
the Court' s takings test to encompass regulation of mobile home parks. The Court
refused to consider the petitioner' s argument that although no actual physical invasion
occurred, the county ordinance amounted to a regulatory taking because it deprived
mobile home park owners of the economic use of their property. The Court described the
regulatory takings analysis in terms of an ad hoc balancing test that "necessarily entails
complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government
actions." That is not the type of language that promotes and protects private property,
but things got worse in Lucas.
The facts in Lucas are straightforward. David Lucas, a real estate developer, bought two
beachfront lots on a South Carolina barrier island in anticipation of building vacation
homes as was then permitted by all relevant regulatory bodies. The South Carolina
Legislature then enacted the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act, which

23
prevented Lucas from building on his property. A state trial court found that the state' s
action was a taking because it rendered the property "valueless" and ordered
compensation. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision on the ground
that no compensation is owed under the Takings Clause regardless of the regulation' s
effect on the property' s value when a regulation is designed to prevent "harmful or
noxious uses" of property. The notion that building a home at the beach is a "harmful or
noxious" use of property would strike most people as strange or even bizarre, but the
South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the legislature' s determination that building
additional homes would threaten existing homes and the delicate environmental system
of the barrier islands. Had the South Carolina decision been upheld, Mr. Lucas would
have been faced with the loss of over $1 million.
The U.S. Supreme Court' s decision to grant certiorari in Lucas created a great deal of
excitement among property rights proponents as well as a great deal of concern among
environmentalists. For property rights proponents, Lucas was a good case in the sense
that the South Carolina Supreme Court' s decision seemed so inequitable that the U.S.
Supreme Court was bound to offer some relief. Lucas also presented an opportunity to
develop a coherent theory of regulatory takings that would act as a real constraint on
regulatory activity. On the other hand, environmentalists were concerned that the Court,
in granting relief to Lucas, would rein in the regulatory demands of the environmental
lobby. As it turned out, all the glee and hand wringing were for naught.

The Distinction Between Total and Partial Takings

The Supreme Court' s decision in Lucas was a major disappointment because the
opinion unnecessarily limited its impact to unusual situations where the regulatory taking
renders the property "valueless." Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a majority of six,
delineated a boundary between compensable and noncompensable land-use
regulations based on the distinction between total and partial regulatory takings. Justice
Scalia held that the Takings Clause reached only those land-use restrictions that
deprived the owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of property. That statement was
sufficient to overturn the South Carolina Supreme Court, but it failed to offer any
improvement to the law of regulatory takings because most regulatory takings do not
render the affected property "valueless." Thus, land-use regulations ostensibly adopted
to promote some articulated state interest will not require compensation to injured
landowners so long as there is not a total taking or a physical invasion of the property.
The distinction between total and partial regulatory takings is the most troublesome
aspect of Justice Scalia' s opinion. The distinction is arbitrary and inconsistent with the
purposes of the Takings Clause. For the typical landowner, the distinction between total
and partial takings represents a difference in relative magnitude of loss for any given
piece of property, but makes little sense in terms of a landowner bearing a
disproportionately large share of the burden of creating some public benefit. Under the
Lucas Court' s total/partial distinction, one landowner' s noncompensable partial taking
may be a much larger dollar loss than another landowner' s compensable total taking. In
this regard, the total/partial distinction seems arbitrary and unsound.
Moreover, the total/partial distinction for regulatory takings was not necessary in light of
earlier Supreme Court decisions involving partial physical takings. For example, in the
1933 case of Jacobs v. United States, farmers sued the federal government to recover
compensation for the occasional flooding of their property that was caused by the
construction of a dam by the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that there
had been a partial taking of the lands in question, for which the government was
required to make compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Many years later, in Griggs
v. Allegheney County (1962), the Court addressed the partial physical taking of air space

24
over land. In that case, the county established an airport next to residential property,
making it unsuitable for residential use. The Court required payment of compensation
even though the property could be used for nonresidential or commercial purposes—that
is, even though the property was not made valueless. Thus, it is clear from an analogous
area of Takings jurisprudence that Supreme Court precedent did not prohibit Justice
Scalia from requiring compensation for partial regulatory takings.
The most plausible explanation for why Justice Scalia adopted the total/partial distinction
is that requiring compensation for partial takings would have laid the foundation for an
all-out assault on other partial regulatory takings, such as zoning restrictions and rent
control. Lucas offered a potential vehicle for such a dramatic change in property rights
protection because most of the Justices did not really believe that Lucas had lost all
economically beneficial use of his property. That is, Lucas really involved a partial taking,
but Justice Scalia chose to adopt the South Carolina trial court' s characterization of it as
a total taking and use the total/partial distinction to limit the scope of the decision.
Unfortunately, the Lucas opinion gives legislators and lower courts plenty of guidance
about how to avoid finding a regulatory taking.
As disappointing as the Lucas holding might be to proponents of property rights, it is
useful to keep some perspective on the decision by considering Justice Blackmun' s view
of Mr. Lucas' s unfortunate treatment at the hands of the South Carolina Legislature. In a
strong dissent to Justice Scalia' s majority opinion, Justice Blackmun concluded that
"even assuming that petitioner' s property was rendered valueless, the risk inherent in
investments of the sort made by petitioner, the generality of the Act, and the compelling
purpose motivating the South Carolina Legislature persuade me that the Act did not
effect a taking of petitioner'
s property." Real estate developers, like Mr. Lucas, are
accustomed to the financial risk involved in their business. Owners of beachfront homes,
like Mr. Lucas hoped to become, are well aware of the risks of storms and hurricanes.
However, just because people are willing to incur those types of risks, it does not follow
that they willingly accept the risk that the legislature can take their property with no
prospect of compensation. Under Blackmun' s view, the biggest risk—apparently an
"inherent" risk—of owning property is that the legislature will destroy its value free of any
obligation to compensate the victim. This brings real meaning to the saying "When the
legislature is in session, there is no such thing as an insurable interest."
Lucas not only failed to meet its potential to provide more protection for property owners,
it also instructed governments how to avoid paying the full costs of regulatory takings.
The tragedy of Lucas is that the Court has told governments, in effect, "you can take and
you won' t have to pay as long as you don' t take it all."
Casual observation of politics at any level of government teaches us that we should
never underestimate the ability of politicians and interest groups to take advantage of
every opportunity to use political force to transfer wealth. But Supreme Court opinions
continue to reflect a naive view of politics and the American democratic process.
Nowhere is that naivete more evident than in Lucas. The Lucas decision creates a clear
road map for how legislators should write legislation to avoid regulatory takings claims.
As a result, we may have seen the last regulatory taking—at least according to Justice
Scalia' s definition—but we can expect to see even more legislative intrusions on
property rights.

The Lower Courts

A more immediate concern with Justice Scalia' s distinction between partial and total
takings was that lower courts would seize on the negative implication—if there is not a
total deprivation of economic value, then there is not a taking and compensation is not
required. That is an attractive bright line rule for lower court judges because it is simple

25
and easy to apply. Moreover, application of the Lucas rule is not subject to the types of
second guessing that go with the application of more complicated standards like the one
articulated in Yee which requires "complex factual assessments of the purposes and
economic effects of government actions." In short, because judges generally do not like
to see their decisions overturned on appeal, the simple calculus of Lucas—is it a total
taking or not?—is very appealing.
A review of the lower court cases—a few of which are mentioned here—suggests that
the courts have been doing exactly what property rights proponents feared. Perhaps the
most literal following of Lucas was by the Washington State Court of Appeals in Powers
v. Skagit County, which involved land-use restrictions prohibiting building in a flood plain
where the owner previously had been granted building permits, but had allowed them to
expire before beginning construction. The Washington State Court of Appeals stated
"unless [the plaintiff] can demonstrate on remand that he is entitled to categorical
treatment under Lucas (by showing that his property retains no economically viable use
as a result of the regulations), then the trial court'
s determination that the regulations are
insulated from his takings challenge must be affirmed." In Barnardsville Quarry, Inc. v.
Borough of Bernardsville, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a takings challenge to
a local ordinance limiting the permissible depth of a quarry that reduced the value of the
plaintiff'
s land by over 90 percent. Lucas had no impact on the analysis or the ultimate
decision, presumably because both parties recognized that it was not a total taking.
In another case, State of Delaware v. Booker, the Superior Court of Delaware rejected a
takings challenge after finding Lucas inapplicable to a prohibition on building in a
highway "buffer zone" that was created when a new highway was built on adjacent
condemned property: "Defendants incorrectly rely on Lucas and assume building
prohibitions necessarily render land valueless. In Lucas, the state legislature' s building
restriction did render the land valueless but those facts were significantly different from
the facts of the Defendants'case . . . While a building prohibition on coastal lots bought
by a residential developer for the purpose of constructing houses upon them rendered
the property in Lucas valueless, the same is not true of farmland which has been and
currently is used in the same capacity. The Defendants focus too narrowly on whether a
regulation does or does not prohibit building. The determinative question is whether the
regulation completely deprives the owner of ‘any reasonable economic use'and, thus,
renders the property valueless. Defendants cannot claim their land is valueless simply
because they might have developed it in the future. The possibility of future development
is irrelevant because the land, as evidenced by the current use, has not been rendered
completely worthless. The regulation is considered a taking only if it deprives the owner
of all ‘economically viable use of his property.' "
The important point illustrated by these cases is just how easy the Lucas total/partial
takings distinction makes it for the lower courts to dismiss a regulatory taking claim. If
the property has any value after the imposition of the regulation, then the game is over.

Scalia's Exception: Another Negative Implication?

Having articulated a bright-line distinction between total and partial regulatory takings,
and stated that "total regulatory takings must be compensated," Justice Scalia then
created an exception to the new total taking rule by providing that compensation would
not be required—indeed, a "taking" would not have occurred—if the regulation prohibits
uses of a property that were not "previously permissible under relevant property and
nuisance principles." In other words, if the regulated activity is some form of nuisance or
noxious use subject to regulation by common law, then the state is not required to
compensate property owners for any resulting economic loss.

26
The negative implication of this position is that if the activity was previously permitted
under relevant property and nuisance principles, then the prohibition of the activity would
be a total regulatory taking that must be compensated. Justice Blackmun views this
possibility with alarm in his dissenting opinion: "Under the Court' s opinion today, . . . if a
state should decide to prohibit the manufacture of asbestos, cigarettes, or concealable
firearms, for example, it must be prepared to pay for the adverse economic
consequences of its decision. One must wonder if government will be able to ‘go on'
effectively if it must risk compensation ‘for every such change in general law.' "
Although some property rights proponents might be thrilled with such a result (one
Justice's doomsday is another person' s utopia), Blackmun' s doomsday scenario is an
extreme interpretation of Justice Scalia' s analysis of the rule and exception. For starters,
the exception is relevant only if there has been a total regulatory taking. Thus, if the
regulation does not destroy all economically beneficial uses, then it does not matter
whether the regulated activity was previously permitted because all partial restrictions
are sustained under Justice Scalia' s formulation. Once again, Justice Scalia' s distinction
between partial and total takings makes easy work for lower court judges and it is
unlikely that they will be willing to follow this potential interpretation of Scalia's exception.

Regulatory Takings and the Regulatory State

The Reagan-Bush-Rehnquist court has generated interest in the possibility of reining in
the regulatory state through greater protection of property rights, but one stark fact tells
the real story—that Court has not ruled that any significant state or federal regulatory
program constitutes a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Takings
Clause could be reinvigorated to act as a real check on regulatory excesses, but the
Court has been unwilling to take the necessary steps perhaps because it views the
democratic process as the best way to control governmental power. After all, the laws
and regulations at issue are products of majority voting in a democratic system.
However, in light of a generation of work in public choice economics and the economics
of regulation, the Court gives too much deference to special-interest regulations cloaked
in public-interest rhetoric.
We are left with a Court that takes property rights seriously only when granting certiorari
(perhaps out of concern for the plight of individual plaintiffs like Mr. Lucas), but is too
beholden to majoritarian institutions to use the Takings Clause to overcome the
regulatory actions of federal, state, and local governments. Perhaps an inquiry into the
interest group aspects of the regulations would help. For example, in making the
"complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government
action," courts should look beyond the public-interest rhetoric and examine the validity of
the alleged public purpose. If the legislation'
s primary effect is to benefit interest groups
and is inconsistent with the articulated public interest, the Takings Clause could require
payment of just compensation to injured property owners and legislators would be forced
to consider the budgetary implications of their actions. Of course, a first step in giving
teeth to the concept of regulatory takings would be to abandon the total/partial regulatory
takings distinction. Whether the Takings Clause is the best approach to controlling the
excesses of the regulatory state is another issue. An alternative approach would be
revitalization of the substantive due process review as a means of invalidating
legislation. For now, unfortunately, the prospects of greater protection of property rights
under either approach seem more remote than at any time in the past decade.

Postscript
On remand, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered the state of South Carolina to
purchase the Lucas property. As the new owner of a previously "worthless" piece of

27
property, the state has decided to enter the real estate development business and has
offered the property for sale as residential sites. Presumably, the state has changed its
land-use restrictions to allow the development. This role reversal demonstrates that
actions that may appear to be in the public interest when they are "free"—that is, when
the political decisionmakers don' t bear the costs—are not necessarily attractive
government programs once the political decisionmakers must bear the budgetary costs
of their actions. It is difficult to find a better example of how protection for owners of
private property serves to restrain the growth of government.

28
CASE LAW AND FINDINGS RELATED TO PURSUIT OF CLAIM FOR REGULATORY
TAKINGS IN THE LOS OSOS PROHIBITION ZONE

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)

Issue: Was there a nexus between the condition on the requested permit and a
legitimate state government purpose of protecting the public view of a beach?
Background: The California Coastal Commission demanded a lateral public easement
across the Nollans’ beachfront lot in exchange for a permit to demolish an existing
bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom house. The public easement was
designed to connect two public beaches that were separated by the Nollan property. The
Coastal Commission had asserted that the public easement condition was imposed to
promote the legitimate state interest of diminishing the “blockage of the view of the
ocean” caused by construction of the larger house.
Decision: The Court found that there had been a taking, as it found no “essential nexus”
between the government’s purpose and its condition on construction that required the
property owners to grant an easement allowing the public access to their beachfront.
The Court ruled that while the Coastal Commission could have required that the Nollans
provide a viewing spot on their property for passersby, there was no nexus between
visual access to the ocean and a permit condition requiring lateral public access along
the Nollans’ beachfront lot.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304
(1987)
Issue: Did an interim ordinance prohibiting construction of any structures in a flood zone
cause a temporary taking of property requiring compensation?
Background: A church purchased a 21-acre parcel of land located in a canyon along
the banks of a river that is a natural drainage channel for a watershed area. The church
operated a campground on the site. Flooding destroyed the campground and its
buildings. In response to the flooding of the canyon, the County of Los Angeles adopted
an interim ordinance that prohibited construction in an interim flood protection area,
including the site on which the campground had stood. The church filed suit, seeking just
compensation for loss of the use of the campground.
Decision: The Court ruled that even if a regulation that has been found to result in a
taking is repealed or invalidated the government must pay just compensation for the
interim period that the regulation was in effect.

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)

Issue: Did a zoning ordinance limiting the number of houses that landowners could build
on their property cause a taking?
Background: The landowners acquired 5 acres of unimproved land for residential
development in Tiburon, California. Subsequently, the city adopted two ordinances that
modified existing zoning requirements. The density restrictions under the ordinances
permitted the landowners to build between one and five single-family residences on their
5-acre tract. The landowners did not seek approval to develop their land, and instead
brought suit for just compensation. The complaint alleged that their land had greater

29
value than other suburban property in California due to the scenic views, and that the
ordinances destroyed the value of their property.
Decision: The Court held that the zoning ordinance on its face did not cause a taking.
The court stated that the ordinance was rationally related to the legitimate public goal of
open-space preservation, the ordinance benefits property owners as well as the public,
and the landowners may still be able to build up to five houses on a lot. The Court also
found that because the landowners had not submitted a plan for development of their
property, there was no concrete controversy regarding the application of the specific
zoning provisions.

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)
Issue: Did the city’s use of a historic preservation ordinance to block construction of an
office tower atop a designated historic landmark cause a taking?
Background: The Landmark Preservation Commission denied Penn Central permission
to build a multistory office building above Grand Central Station in New York City. Penn
Central alleged the regulation took its property.
Decision: The Court ruled that there had been no taking of property. In evaluating the
case, the Court set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a government
regulation has resulted in a taking: (1) the character of the governmental actions; (2) the
economic impact of the action on the property owner; and (3) the extent to which the
regulation has interfered with the distinct, investment-backed expectations of the owner.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
Issue: Did a state law barring coal mining that might cause subsidence of overlying land
result in a taking of private property in a case where the mineral estate owner is different
from the surface estate owner?
Background: A coal company conveyed the surface ownership of its property and
retained the right to remove coal from the subsurface. Subsequently, a state law was
enacted, forbidding the mining of coal in such a way as to cause the subsidence of
housing in situations where the surface and subsurface ownership belong to different
parties. As a result, the coal company was unable to exercise its right to remove the
coal.
Decision: The Court held that a taking occurred. The Court stated “while property may
be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a
taking.” The Court reasoned that the extent of the taking under the state law—abolishing
the right to mine coal, which it deemed “a very valuable estate”—was great. Moreover,
because the state law applied only where surface and subsurface land is in different
ownership, it benefits a narrow private interest rather than a broad public one.

30
 AGINS VS. TIBURON -RELEVANT FINDINGS RELATED TO PURSUIT OF CLAIM
FOR REGULATORY TAKINGS IN THE LOS OSOS PROHIBITION ZONE

U.S. Supreme Court AGINS v. TIBURON, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) 447 U.S. 255
AGINS ET UX. v. CITY OF TIBURON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 79-602.

Argued April 15, 1980.

Decided June 10, 1980.
After appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land in appellee city for
residential development, the city was required by California law to prepare a general
plan governing land use and the development of open-space land. In response, the city
adopted zoning ordinances that placed appellants'property in a zone in which property
may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, with
density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family
residences on their tract. Without having sought approval for development of their tract
under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that
the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the zoning
ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The city' s demurrer claiming that the complaint
failed to state a cause of action was sustained by the trial court, and the California
Supreme Court affirmed.
Held:
The zoning ordinances on their face do not take appellants'property without just
compensation. Pp. 260-263.
(a) The ordinances substantially advance the legitimate governmental goal of
discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses
and are proper exercises of the city' s police power to protect its residents from the ill
effects of urbanization. Pp. 261-262.
(b) Appellants will share with other owners the benefits and burdens of the city' s exercise
of such police power, and in assessing the fairness of the ordinances these benefits
must be considered along with any diminution in market value that appellants might
suffer. P. 262.
(c) Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of
appellants'land nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership. Since at this
juncture appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by
submitting a development plan to the city, it cannot be said that the impact of the
ordinances has denied them the "justice and fairness" guaranteed by the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 262-263.
24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, affirmed.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. [447 U.S. 255, 256]
Gideon Kanner argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were John P.
Pollock and Reginald G. Hearn.
E. Clement Shute, Jr., argued the cause pro hac vice for appellee. With him on the brief
were Robert I. Conn and Gary T. Ragghianti. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Robert A. Ferris for the
California Forest Protective Association; by Les J. Weinstein and Aaron M. Peck for the

31
Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association; by Howard N. Ellman, Kenneth N.
Burns, and Michael J. Burke for Half Moon Bay Properties, Inc.; by Gus Bauman for the
National Association of Home Builders et al.; by Ronald A. Zumbrun and Thomas E.
Hookano for the Pacific Legal Foundation; and, pro se, by Burton J. Goldstein, M. Reed
Hunter, Jess S. Jackson, Jr., Jerrold A. Fadem, Michael M. Berger, Roger M. Sullivan,
Richard F. Desmond, Stephen J. Wagner, Gerald B. Hansen, and Alfred P. Chasuk for
Mr. Goldstein et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Solicitor General McCree, Assistant
Attorney General Moorman, Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne, Elinor Hadley Stillman,
and Jacques B. Gelin for the United States; by George Deukmejian, Attorney General,
N. Gregory Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard C. Jacobs, Deputy Attorney
General, for the State of California; by the Attorneys General and other officials of their
respective jurisdictions as follows: J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General of Colorado;
Richard S. Gebelein, Attorney General of Delaware, and Regina M. Small, State
Solicitor; Jim Smith, Attorney General of Florida, and Richard Hixson, Assistant Attorney
General; Wayne Minami, Attorney General of Hawaii; William J. Scott, Attorney General
of Illinois, and George Wolff, Assistant Attorney General; William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney
General of Louisiana, and Kendall Vick, Assistant Attorney General; Richard S. Cohen,
Attorney General of Maine, and Cabanne Howard, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen
H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, and Paul F. Strain and Thomas A. Deming,
Deputy Attorneys General; Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and
Stephen M. Leonard, Assistant Attorney General; Robert Abrams, Attorney General of
New York; William J. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, and Colleen Nissl, Assistant
Attorney General; James A. Redden, Attorney General of Oregon, and Peter S. Herman
and Mary J. Deits, Deputy Attorneys General; M. Jerome Diamond, Attorney General of
Vermont, and Bensen D. Scotch, Assistant Attorney General; Slade Gorton, Attorney
General of Washington, and Charles B. Roe, Jr., Senior [447 U.S. 255, 257] Assistant
Attorney General; and Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, for the
State of Colorado et al.; by John H. Larson and Paul T. Hanson for the County of Los
Angeles; by Robert J. Logan and Jeffrey P. Widman for the City of San Jose et al.; by
Daniel Riesel, Nicholas A. Robinson, Joel H. Sachs, Ross Sandler, and Philip Weinberg
for the Committee on Environmental Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York; by David Bonderman for the Conservation Foundation et al.; and by Elliott E.
Blinderman for the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, Inc., et al.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Timothy B. Flynn and A. Thomas Hunt for the
American Planning Association et al.; by Frank Schnidman for the National Association
of Manufacturers; and by Louis E. Goebel and Guenter S. Cohn for San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. [447 U.S. 255, 257]
MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether municipal zoning ordinances took appellants'
property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I
After the appellants acquired five acres of unimproved land in the city of Tiburon, Cal.,
for residential development, the city was required by state law to prepare a general plan
governing both land use and the development of open-space land. Cal. Govt. Code Ann.
65302 (a) and (e) (West Supp. 1979); see 65563. In response, the city adopted two
ordinances that modified existing zoning requirements. Tiburon, Cal., Ordinances Nos.
123 N. S. and 124 N. S. (June 28, 1973). The zoning ordinances placed the appellants'
property in "RPD-1," a Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone. RPD-1
property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space
uses. Density restrictions permit the appellants to build between one and five single-

32
family residences on their 5-acre tract. The appellants never have sought approval for
development of their land under the zoning ordinances. 1 [447 U.S. 255, 258]
The appellants filed a two-part complaint against the city in State Superior Court. The
first cause of action sought $2 million in damages for inverse condemnation. 2 The
second cause of action requested a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially
unconstitutional. The gravamen of both claims was the appellants'assertion that the city
had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint alleged that land in Tiburon has greater value
than any other suburban property in the State of California. App. 3. The ridge-lands that
appellants own "possess magnificent views of San Francisco Bay and the scenic
surrounding areas [and] have the highest market values of all lands" in Tiburon. Id., at 4.
Rezoning of the land "forever prevented [its] development for residential use. . . ." Id., at
5. Therefore, the appellants contended, the city had "completely destroyed the value of
[appellants'] property for any purpose or use whatsoever. . . ." Id., at 7. 3
The city demurred, claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The
Superior Court sustained the demurrer, 4 and the California Supreme Court affirmed. 24
Cal. 3d 266, 598 P.2d 25 (1979). The State Supreme Court [447 U.S. 255, 259] first
considered the inverse condemnation claim. It held that a landowner who challenges the
constitutionality of a zoning ordinance may not "sue in inverse condemnation and
thereby transmute an excessive use of the police power into a lawful taking for which
compensation in eminent domain must be paid." Id., at 273, 598 P.2d, at 28. The sole
remedies for such a taking, the court concluded, are mandamus and declaratory
judgment. Turning therefore to the appellants'claim for declaratory relief, the California
Supreme Court held that the zoning ordinances had not deprived the appellants of their
property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 5
We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U.S. 1011 (1980). We now affirm the holding that
the zoning ordinances on their face do not take the appellants'property without just
compensation. 6 [447 U.S. 255, 260]
II
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that private property shall not "be taken for public use,
without just compensation." The appellants'complaint framed the question as whether a
zoning ordinance that prohibits all development of their land effects a taking under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The California Supreme Court rejected the
appellants'characterization of the issue by holding, as a matter of state law, that the
terms of the challenged ordinances allow the appellants to construct between one and
five residences on their property. The court did not consider whether the zoning
ordinances would be unconstitutional if applied to prevent appellants from building five
homes. Because the appellants have not submitted a plan for development of their
property as the ordinances permit, there is as yet no concrete controversy regarding the
application of the specific zoning provisions. See Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406
U.S. 583, 588 (1972). See also Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 997 (1979)
(POWELL, J., concurring). Thus, the only question properly before us is whether the
mere enactment of the zoning ordinances constitutes a taking.
The application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the
ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, see Nectow v.
Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188 (1928), or denies an owner economically viable use of his
land, see Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 138 , n. 36 (1978).
The determination that governmental action constitutes a taking is, in essence, a
determination that the public at large, rather than a single owner, must bear the burden
of an exercise of state power in the public interest. Although no precise rule determines
[447 U.S. 255, 261] when property has been taken, see Kaiser Aetna v. United States,

33
444 U.S. 164 (1979), the question necessarily requires a weighing of private and public
interests. The seminal decision in Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), is
illustrative. In that case, the landowner challenged the constitutionality of a municipal
ordinance that restricted commercial development of his property. Despite alleged
diminution in value of the owner' s land, the Court held that the zoning laws were facially
constitutional. They bore a substantial relationship to the public welfare, and their
enactment inflicted no irreparable injury upon the landowner. Id., at 395-397.
In this case, the zoning ordinances substantially advance legitimate governmental goals.
The State of California has determined that the development of local open-space plans
will discourage the "premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban
uses." Cal. Govt. Code Ann. 65561 (b) (West. Supp. 1979). 7 The specific zoning
regulations at issue are exercises of the city' s police power to protect the residents of
Tiburon from the ill effects of urbanization. 8 Such governmental purposes long have
been recognized as legitimate. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, supra,
at 129; Village of Belle Terre v. [447 U.S. 255, 262] Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974);
Euclid v. Ambler Co., supra, at 394-395.
The ordinances place appellants'land in a zone limited to single-family dwellings,
accessory buildings, and open-space uses. Construction is not permitted until the builder
submits a plan compatible with "adjoining patterns of development and open space."
Tiburon, Cal., Ordinance No. 123 N. S. 2 (F). In passing upon a plan, the city also will
consider how well the proposed development would preserve the surrounding
environment and whether the density of new construction will be offset by adjoining open
spaces. Ibid. The zoning ordinances benefit the appellants as well as the public by
serving the city' s interest in assuring careful and orderly development of residential
property with provision for open-space areas. There is no indication that the appellants'
5-acre tract is the only property affected by the ordinances. Appellants therefore will
share with other owners the benefits and burdens of the city' s exercise of its police
power. In assessing the fairness of the zoning ordinances, these benefits must be
considered along with any diminution in market value that the appellants might suffer.
Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of
appellants'land, see United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 262 , and n. 7 (1946), nor
extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership, see Kaiser Aetna v. United States,
supra, at 179-180. The appellants have alleged that they wish to develop the land for
residential purposes, that the land is the most expensive suburban property in the State,
and that the best possible use of the land is residential. App. 3-4. The California
Supreme Court has decided, as a matter of state law, that appellants may be permitted
to build as many as five houses on their five acres of prime residential property. At this
juncture, the appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by
submitting a development plan to local officials. Thus, it cannot be said that the impact of
general land-use regulations has denied [447 U.S. 255, 263] appellants the "justice and
fairness" guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Penn Central
Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S., at 124 . 9
III
The State Supreme Court determined that the appellants could not recover damages for
inverse condemnation even if the zoning ordinances constituted a taking. The court
stated that only mandamus and declaratory judgment are remedies available to such a
landowner. Because no taking has occurred, we need not consider whether a State may
limit the remedies available to a person whose land has been taken without just
compensation.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is
Affirmed.

34
Footnotes
[ Footnote 1 ] Shortly after it enacted the ordinances, the city began eminent domain
proceedings against the appellants'land. The following year, however, the [447 U.S.
255, 258] city abandoned those proceedings, and its complaint was dismissed. The
appellants were reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with the action.
[ Footnote 2 ] Inverse condemnation should be distinguished from eminent domain.
Eminent domain refers to a legal proceeding in which a government asserts, its authority
to condemn property. United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 255 -258 (1980). Inverse
condemnation is "a shorthand description of the manner in which a landowner recovers
just compensation for a taking of his property when condemnation proceedings have not
been instituted." Id., at 257.
[ Footnote 3 ] The appellants also contended that the city' s aborted attempt to acquire
the land through eminent domain had destroyed the use of the land during the pendency
of the condemnation proceedings. App. 10.
[ Footnote 4 ] The State Superior Court granted the appellants leave to amend the cause
of action seeking a declaratory judgment, but the appellants did not avail themselves of
that opportunity.
[ Footnote 5 ] The California Supreme Court also rejected appellants'argument that the
institution and abandonment of eminent domain proceedings themselves constituted a
taking. The court found that the city had acted reasonably and that general municipal
planning decisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment.
[ Footnote 6 ] The appellants also contend that the state courts erred by sustaining the
demurrer despite their uncontroverted allegations that the zoning ordinances would
"forever preven[t] . . . development for residential use," id., at 5, and "completely
destro[y] the value of [appellant' s] property for any purpose or use whatsoever . . .," id.,
at 7. The California Supreme Court compared the express terms of the zoning
ordinances with the factual allegations of the complaint. The terms of the ordinances
permit construction of one to five residences on the appellants'5-acre tract. The court
therefore rejected the contention that the ordinances prevented all use of the land.
Under California practice, allegations in a complaint are taken to be true unless "contrary
to law or to a fact of which a court may take judicial notice." Dale v. City of Mountain
View, 55 Cal. App. 3d 101, 105, 127 Cal. Rptr. 520, 522 (1976); see Martinez v. Socoma
Cos., 11 Cal. 3d 394, 399-400 521 P.2d 841, 844 (1974). California courts may take
judicial notice of municipal ordinances. Cal Evid. Code Ann. 452 (b) (West 1966). In this
case, the State Supreme Court merely rejected allegations inconsistent with the explicit
terms of the ordinance under [447 U.S. 255, 260] review. The appellants'objection to
the State Supreme Court' s application of state law does not raise a federal question
appropriate for review by this Court. See Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General,
205 U.S. 454, 461 (1907).
[ Footnote 7 ] The State also recognizes that the preservation of open space is
necessary "for the assurance of the continued availability of land for the production of
food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of
natural resources." Cal. Govt. Code Ann. 65561 (a) (West. Supp. 1979); see Tiburon,
Cal., Ordinance No. 124 N. S. 1 (f) and (h).
[ Footnote 8 ] The City Council of Tiburon found that "[i]t is in the public interest to avoid
unnecessary conversion of open space land to strictly urban uses, thereby protecting
against the resultant adverse impacts, such as air, noise and water pollution, traffic
congestion, destruction of scenic beauty, disturbance of the ecology and environment,
hazards to geology, fire and flood, and other demonstrated consequences of urban
sprawl." Id., 1 (c).

35
[ Footnote 9 ] Appellants also claim that the city'
s precondemnation activities constitute a
taking. See nn. 1, 3, and 5, supra. The State Supreme Court correctly rejected the
contention that the municipality's good-faith planning activities, which did not result in
successful prosecution of an eminent domain claim, so burdened the appellants'
enjoyment of their property as to constitute a taking. See also City of Walnut Creek v.
Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 73 Cal. App. 3d 611, 620-624, 140 Cal. Rptr. 690,
695-697 (1977). Even if the appellants'ability to sell their property was limited during the
pendency of the condemnation proceeding, the appellants were free to sell or develop
their property when the proceedings ended. Mere fluctuations in value during the
process of governmental decisionmaking, absent extraordinary delay, are "incidents of
ownership. They cannot be considered as a `taking'in the constitutional sense."
Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 285 (1939). See Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v.
City of St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784, 787 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 899 (1979);
Reservation Eleven Associates v. District of Columbia, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 311, 315-
316, 420 F.2d 153, 157-158 (1969); Virgin Islands v. 50.05 Acres of Land, 185 F. Supp.
495, 498 (V. I. 1960); 2 J. Sackman & P. Rohan, Nichols'Law of Eminent Domain 6.13
3. (3d ed. 1979). [447 U.S. 255, 264]

The only takings case of the Supreme Court' s 1998 Term, City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.(2) was highly anticipated on both sides of the property-rights
fault line. When it was argued back in October of last year, the case seemed to portend
a major reappraisal of the so-called "first prong" of the regulatory takings standard set
forth in Agins v. City of Tiburon, namely, that a land use regulation effects a
compensable taking if it "does not substantially advance legitimate state interests."(3)
The Court had granted certiorari to consider, among other things, whether "liability for a
regulatory taking can be based upon a standard that allows a jury or court to reweigh
evidence concerning the reasonableness of [a] public agency' s land use decision."(4)
The City of Monterey and its amici curiae had argued strenuously in the negative,
propounding a vision of regulatory takings law in which "courts employ deferential
standards of review and require only that there be some basis to support the local
government' s [land use] decision."(5) Indeed, at oral argument, the representative of the
Solicitor General had gone so far as to urge the Court explicitly to discard the first prong
of Agins altogether, in favor of a much more relaxed standard derived from due process
jurisprudence.(6)

In this light, the actual decision in Del Monte Dunes was anti-climactic. In the litigation
that occurred before the Supreme Court accepted the case for review, the Ninth Circuit
had affirmed a jury verdict awarding $1.45 million to the property owner for having
suffered a regulatory taking when the City repeatedly -- and, so the jury found,
unreasonably -- rejected the owner' s applications to develop beachfront property.(7) The
bulk of the Supreme Court' s three opinions was devoted to the question of whether the
district court had properly submitted the City' s liability to the jury, as opposed to
determining that liability for itself purely as a matter of law. On this question, the Court
split along somewhat non-intuitive lines, with a bare majority answering the question in
the affirmative. Justice Kennedy -- writing for himself, the Chief Justice, and Justices
Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas -- concluded that a jury trial was proper because the
owner' s regulatory takings claim "sound[ed] basically in tort" and sought "legal relief"
(that is, money damages), making the claim an "action at [common] law" within the
purview of the Seventh Amendment.(8)

36
Losing Justice Scalia at this point, Justice Kennedy' s opinion proceeded to distinguish
precedent that had held "there is no constitutional right to a jury in eminent domain [i.e.,
condemnation] proceedings."(9) Although this precedent might profitably have been
discarded on the basis that it is "not just wrong, but manifestly wrong,"(10) the plurality
chose to rest on hypertechnical (and, to my mind, unconvincing) distinctions between a
condemnation proceeding on the one hand and "a § 1983 action to redress an
uncompensated taking" on the other.(11) Justice Scalia, by contrast, took a more
categorical approach: "all § 1983 actions must be treated alike insofar as the Seventh
Amendment right to jury trial is concerned, [and] that right exists when monetary
damages are sought."(12) Justice Souter, on behalf of himself and Justices O' Connor,
Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissented on the jury trial question. His opinion concluded that
"the analogy between direct and inverse condemnation is apparent," and "[t]he strength
of the analogy is fatal to [the property owner's] claim to a jury trial as a matter of
right."(13)

If this debate strikes you as somewhat arcane, not to mention far afield from the
substance of takings law, then you are not alone. But at least the Court clarified an
important procedural point, didn' t it? We can say with certainty that a property owner
who asserts a takings claim through the vehicle of § 1983 in federal court is entitled to a
jury trial on the question of . . . . Well, the devil is in the ellipses. The Court self-
consciously did "not attempt a precise demarcation of the respective provinces of judge
and jury in determining whether a zoning decision substantially advances legitimate
governmental interests."(14) Thus, the Court emphasized that its holding did not
necessarily extend to a claim that presents "a broad challenge to the constitutionality of
[a] city's general land-use ordinances or policies."(15) The Court also took pains to say
that its holding did not address the allocation of decisionmaking power between judge
and jury in the context of a claim that "[a] city' s general regulations were unreasonable
as applied to [particular] property."(16) So a property owner' s right to jury trial does not
necessarily extend to "broad" (facial?) constitutional challenges to land use regulations
or to "as applied" challenges either.

Well, at least in the somewhat narrow context of a claim like Del Monte' s -- "the city's
denial of the final development permit was inconsistent not only with the city' s general
ordinances and policies but even with the shifting ad hoc restrictions previously imposed
by the city"(17) -- a property owner is entitled to a jury trial in federal court. In principle,
this rule is praiseworthy, since takings law practitioners generally agree that juries are
more sympathetic to property owners than judges. In practice, however, the rule is
virtually meaningless. As the Court itself pointed out, current doctrine provides that a
federal court "cannot entertain a takings claim under § 1983 unless or until the
complaining landowner has been denied an adequate postdeprivation remedy."(18) This
means, in practical terms, that so long as a state "provides a facially adequate procedure
for obtaining just compensation for [regulatory] takings" -- and the Court apparently
believes that "[e]ven the State of California" now provides such a procedure -- then a
property owner must "pursue relief in state court as a precondition to federal relief."(19)
Moreover, by virtue of collateral estoppel, this supposed precondition to federal relief has
become a substitute for federal relief, driving virtually all federal takings claims out of
federal court for all time.(20)

Let us return now to the issues that suggested Del Monte Dunes might result in a
significant ruling on the law of takings. (With respect to the following issues, bear in mind
that the Court' s opinion was unanimous, joined by everyone from Justice Scalia on the

37
one end of the property rights spectrum to Justice Stevens on the other.) Recall that
briefing and oral argument had given credence to the speculation that Del Monte Dunes
would produce a comprehensive, if not definitive, explication of the "substantially
advance" prong of the Agins standard. That speculation was wrong. Having observed
that the Court has not provided "a thorough explanation of the nature or applicability of
the requirement that a regulation substantially advance legitimate public interests
outside the context of required dedications or exactions,"(21) Del Monte Dunes again
ducked the opportunity to provide that thorough explanation. Instead, as set forth below,
the Court gave us four "negatives."

First, whatever the law is, it has not been changed by this case. As noted above, the
Solicitor General had asked the Court to discard the "substantially advance" prong of the
Agins test in favor of a less-exacting due process-type standard. The Court, however,
explicitly declined to "revisit" Agins and the many other decisions that have reiterated the
Agins standard: "the applicability or continued viability of the general test for regulatory
takings liability recited by these authorities" was simply not up for reconsideration.(22)

Second, the law applicable in the aforementioned "context of required dedications or

exactions" -- where the Court has indeed explicated the meaning of the substantially
advance standard -- is not applicable outside that context. As laid down and applied in
Dolan v. City of Tigard,(23) the specific rule governing "land-use decisions conditioning
approval of development on the dedication of property to public use" is that "dedications
demanded as conditions of development [must be] proportional to the development' s
anticipated impacts."(24) In Del Monte Dunes, the Court held that such rule "was not
designed to address, and is not readily applicable to, the much different questions
arising where, as here, the landowner' s challenge is based not on excessive exactions
but on denial of development."(25) Accordingly, the Court held that "the rough-
proportionality test of Dolan is inapposite to a case such as this one."(26)

Third, the Court emphasized that whatever the significance of the Ninth Circuit' s decision
upholding the jury verdict, that decision "did not adopt a rule of takings law allowing
wholesale interference by judge or jury with municipal land-use policies, laws, or routine
regulatory decisions."(27) So, despite the presence of the word "reasonable" in the
instructions to the jury with respect to whether the city's actions substantially advanced a
legitimate public purpose, the verdict was not based on "a jury determination of the
reasonableness of [the city' s] general zoning laws or land-use policies."(28) Moreover,
the jury instructions "did not allow the jury to consider the reasonableness, per se, of the
customized, ad hoc conditions imposed on the property' s development," and "the jury
was not given free rein to second-guess the city' s land-use policies."(29) We do not
know from Del Monte Dunes if any of these things are definitely proscribed -- though
terms like "wholesale interference" and "second-guess" surely put them in a negative
light -- but we do know that by affirming the judgment below, the Supreme Court
definitely did not endorse them.

Finally, perhaps to provide the balance necessary to maintain unanimity, the Court also
emphasized that is not the law that municipal "land-use decisions are immune from
judicial scrutiny under all circumstances."(30) Such a notion "is contrary to settled
regulatory takings principles."(31)

What, then, is the significance of Del Monte Dunes? Although the Court left unanswered
most of the important questions regarding the "substantially advance" standard, I

38
suspect that the four negatives described above will provide substantial new ammunition
for both advocates and detractors of property rights. Let me briefly make the obvious
case on behalf of the latter, followed by the rebuttal case on behalf of the former.

If I were a lawyer for a public agency that regulates land use, I would argue that Del
Monte Dunes rejected "heightened scrutiny" -- shorthand for any scrutiny greater than
required by the rational basis test -- of any land-use decisions outside the narrow context
of exactions and dedications. In restricting Dolan' s rough-proportionality test to that
context, the Court necessarily rejected the notion that heightened scrutiny is generally
applicable to regulatory actions challenged as takings. This conclusion is confirmed by
the Court' s rejection of "reasonableness" as a generally applicable standard in takings
law and by the Court' s emphasis on the notion that the decisions of land-use regulators
are protected from "wholesale interference" by judges and juries, and thus that those
decisions may not be "second-guessed" in court.

In response to these arguments, I would lay great weight on the fact that Del Monte
Dunes explicitly rejected the Solicitor General' s call to discard the "substantially
advance" prong of Agins and replace it with the non-heightened scrutiny of the rational
basis test. I would point out that the Court cited -- with apparent endorsement -- footnote
3 of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, in which Justice Scalia had unmistakably
distinguished the "substantially advance" standard from the more deferential "rationally
could have decided" standard, dismissing the notion that "the standards for takings
challenges, due process challenges, and equal protection challenges are identical."(32) I
would argue that the rejection of Dolan' s rough-proportionality test outside the context of
exactions and dedications is precisely that -- a rejection of a context-specific rough-
proportionality test, not a rejection of heightened scrutiny, the test of which is but a single
application. Finally, I would take solace in the Court' s clear rejection of any notion that
municipal land-use decisions are "immune from judicial scrutiny," a condition that would
effectively obtain if the rational basis test were to govern regulatory takings law.

As an objective observer, however, I would have to say that lower courts should simply
ignore Del Monte Dunes as they try to flesh out the "nature or applicability" of the
substantially advance standard. In that regard, the most salient point about the decision
is that the law has not changed. Whatever footnote 3 of Nollan means and whatever the
appropriate level of deference owed by federal courts to land-use regulators, the
resolutions of these issues are the same after Del Monte Dunes as they were before.
This conclusion makes perfect sense in light of the unanimity of the Court with respect to
the substantive issues. Any proposition to which all nine Justices agree is quite likely to
be a truism, understood and (usually) accepted by all lower courts.(33)

If Del Monte Dunes has any significance at all, then, I would say it lies not in what the
Court said but what it did. For the very first time, the Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed a money judgment in favor of a property owner on a regulatory takings claim. If
nothing else, that fact may "keep hope alive" for property rights advocates, particularly
those in California, who have had little success in the lower courts in recent years.

1. * Mr. Grant practices property rights law at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a
nationwide public-interest law firm based in Sacramento, California.
2. 119 S. Ct. 1624 (1999).
3. 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980).
4. Petition for Certiorari at i.

39
 5. Brief for Petitioner at 39 (emphasis added).
6. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 22-29.
7. See 119 S. Ct. at 1634.
8. Id. at 1638.
9. Id. at 1639 (plurality opinion) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14, 18
(1970)).
10. So I argued at length in A Revolutionary View of the Seventh Amendment and the
Just Compensation Clause, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 144, 146 (1996).
11. 119 S. Ct. at 1639 (plurality opinion).
12. Id. at 1645 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).
13. Id. at 1651 (Souter, J., dissenting). In the course of contending that the anti-jury
precedent mentioned in the text is "on solid footing," id. at 1653, Justice Souter' s opinion
repeats a number of historical assertions about the role of the jury in 1791-era eminent
domain proceedings. In my judgment, those assertions -- exemplified by the statement
that "condemnation proceedings carried `no uniform and established right to a common
law jury trial in England or the colonies [sic] at the time the Seventh Amendment was
adopted,' " id. at 1652 (quoting Moore' s Federal Practice) -- are exposed as frauds by an
actual examination of the governing statutes of that era. See Grant, supra note 9, at 177-
91.
14. 119 S. Ct. at 1644.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 1645.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 1644. This doctrine derives principally from Williamson County Regional
Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-97 (1985).
19. Id. at 1633, 1644. The Court' s casual acceptance of the "adequacy" of California
takings law can only rest on ignorance or an overly ironic use of the word "facially."
Anyone who is familiar with this body of law knows that it is adequate for one thing only -
- rejecting takings claims no matter what. See, e.g., Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v.
Superior Ct., 968 P.2d 993 (Cal.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1804 (1999); Landgate, Inc. v.
California Coastal Comm' n, 953 P.2d 1188 (Cal.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 179 (1998);
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 941 P.2d 851 (Cal. 1997), cert. denied, 118
S. Ct. 856 (1998).
20. For example, in Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 278 (1998), property owners who suffered a regulatory taking unsuccessfully
sought just compensation in state court under state law before pursing their federal
takings claim. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the owners were not barred from
federal court by Williamson County. The owners were barred from federal court by
collateral estoppel, however: because the test for a regulatory taking under the Oregon
Constitution is substantially similar to the test under the federal Just Compensation
Clause, and because the owners had unsuccessfully litigated the takings issue in state
court, the owners were precluded from relitigating the issue in federal court. Of course,
that "issue" was the essentially the whole case, with the result that the property owners
were never able to litigate their federal takings claims in federal court -- even though
they had followed all the rules, including having properly "reserved" their federal claims
in the state court litigation.
21. 119 S. Ct. at 1636.
22. Id.
23. 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
24. Del Monte Dunes, 119 S. Ct. at 1635.
25. Id. (emphasis added).

40
 26. Id.
27. Id. at 1637 (emphasis added).
28. Id. at 1636.
29. Id. at 1637 (emphasis added).
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. 483 U.S. 825, 835-36 n.3 (1987).
33. Ironically, it was the one court that seemingly has the greatest trouble applying
legal truisms, namely, the Ninth Circuit, that was affirmed in Del Monte Dunes.
2002 BY THE The Federalist Society

DEL MONTE DUNES -RELEVANT CASE LAW FOR LOS OSOS

CITY OF MONTEREY v. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD. et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 97-1235. Argued October 7, 1998--Decided May 24, 1999
After petitioner city imposed more rigorous demands each of the five times it rejected
applications to develop a parcel of land owned by respondent Del Monte Dunes and its
predecessor in interest, Del Monte Dunes brought this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983. The
District Court submitted the case to the jury on Del Monte Dunes'theory that the city
effected a regulatory taking or otherwise injured the property by unlawful acts, without
paying compensation or providing an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the loss. The
court instructed the jury to find for Del Monte Dunes if it found either that Del Monte
Dunes had been denied all economically viable use of its property or that the city' s
decision to reject the final development proposal did not substantially advance a
legitimate public purpose. The jury found for Del Monte Dunes. In affirming, the Ninth
Circuit ruled, inter alia, that the District Court did not err in allowing Del Monte Dunes'
takings claim to be tried to a jury, because Del Monte Dunes had a right to a jury trial
under §1983; that whether Del Monte Dunes had been denied all economically viable
use of the property and whether the city' s denial of the final proposal substantially
advanced legitimate public interests were, on the facts of this case, questions suitable
for the jury; and that the jury reasonably could have decided each of these questions in
Del Monte Dunes'favor.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
95 F. 3d 1422, affirmed.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV-A-2,
concluding that:
1. The Ninth Circuit' s discussion of the rough-proportionality standard of Dolan v. City
of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 391 , is irrelevant to this Court' s disposition of the case.
Although this Court believes the Dolan standard is inapposite to a case such as this one,
the jury instructions did not mention proportionality, let alone require the jury to find for

41
Del Monte Dunes unless the city' s actions were roughly proportional to its asserted
interests. The rough-proportionality discussion, furthermore, was unnecessary to sustain
the jury' s verdict, given the Ninth Circuit' s holding that Del Monte Dunes had proffered
evidence sufficient to rebut each of the city' s reasons for denying the final development
plan. Pp. 10-11.
2. In holding that the jury could have found the city' s denial of the final development
plan not reasonably related to legitimate public interests, the Ninth Circuit did not
impermissibly adopt a rule allowing wholesale interference by judge or jury with
municipal land-use policies, laws, or routine regulatory decisions. As the city itself
proposed the essence of the jury instructions, it cannot now contend that these
instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law. In any event, the
instructions are consistent with this Court' s previous general discussions of regulatory
takings liability. See, e.g., Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 . Given that the
city did not challenge below the applicability or continued viability of these authorities,
the Court declines the suggestions of amici to revisit them. To the extent the city
contends the District Court' s judgment was based upon a jury determination of the
reasonableness of its general zoning laws or land-use policies, its argument can be
squared neither with the jury instructions nor the theory on which the case was tried,
which were confined to the question whether, in light of the case' s history and context,
the city's particular decision to deny Del Monte Dunes'final development proposal was
reasonably related to the city' s proffered justifications. To the extent the city argues that,
as a matter of law, its land-use decisions are immune from judicial scrutiny under all
circumstances, its position is contrary to settled regulatory takings principles and is
rejected. Pp. 12-15.
3. T he District Court properly submitted the question of liability on Del Monte Dunes'
regulatory takings claim to the jury. Pp. 15-19, 27-32.
(a) The propriety of such submission depends on whether Del Monte Dunes had a
statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial, and, if it did, the nature and extent of the
right. Because §1983 does not itself confer the jury right when it authorizes "an action at
law" to redress deprivation of a federal right under color of state law, the constitutional
question must be reached. The Court' s interpretation of the Seventh Amendment--which
provides that "[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"--
has been guided by historical analysis comprising two principal inquiries: (1) whether the
cause of action either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least analogous
to one that was, and (2) if so, whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in
order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791. Markman
v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, 376 . Pp. 15-17.
(b) Del Monte Dunes'§1983 suit is an action at law for Seventh Amendment
purposes. Pp. 17-19.
(1) That Amendment applies not only to common-law causes of action but also
to statutory causes of action analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily
decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily
heard by courts of equity or admiralty. E.g., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.,
523 U. S. 340, 348 . P. 17.
(2) A §1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action at law within the Seventh
Amendment' s meaning. It is undisputed that when the Amendment was adopted there
was no action equivalent to §1983. It is settled law, however, that the Amendment' s jury
guarantee extends to statutory claims unknown to the common law, so long as the
claims can be said to "soun[d] basically in tort," and seek legal relief. Curtis v. Loether,
415 U. S. 189 , 195-196. There can be no doubt that §1983 claims sound in tort. See,
e.g., Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 483 . Here Del Monte Dunes sought legal relief

42
in the form of damages for the unconstitutional denial of just compensation. Damages for
a constitutional violation are a legal remedy. See, e.g., Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S.
558, 570 . Pp. 17-19.
(c) The particular liability issues were proper for determination by the jury. Pp. 27-
30.
(1) In making this determination, the Court looks to history to determine
whether the particular issues, or analogous ones, were decided by judge or by jury in
suits at common law at the time the Seventh Amendment was adopted. Where history
does not provide a clear answer, the Court looks to precedent and functional
considerations. Markman, supra, at 384. P. 27.
(2) There is no precise analogue for the specific test of liability submitted to the
jury in this case, although some guidance is provided by the fact that, in suits sounding
in tort for money damages, questions of liability were usually decided by the jury, rather
than the judge. P. 27.
(3) None of the Court' s regulatory takings precedents has addressed the
proper allocation of liability determinations between judge and jury in explicit terms. In
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473
U. S. 172, 191 , the Court assumed the propriety of submitting to the jury the question
whether a county planning commission had denied the plaintiff landowner all
economically viable use of the property. However, because Williamson is not a direct
holding, further guidance must be found in considerations of process and function. Pp.
28-29.
(4) In actions at law otherwise within the purview of the Seventh Amendment,
the issue whether a landowner has been deprived of all economically viable use of his
property is for the jury. The issue is predominantly factual, e.g., Pennsylvania Coal Co.
v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 413 , and in actions at law such issues are in most cases
allocated to the jury, see, e.g., Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654,
657 . Pp. 29-30.
(5) Although the question whether a land-use decision substantially advances
legitimate public interests is probably best understood as a mixed question of fact and
law, here, the narrow question submitted to the jury was whether, when viewed in light of
the context and protracted history of the development application process, the city' s
decision to reject a particular development plan bore a reasonable relationship to its
proffered justifications. This question was essentially fact-bound in nature, and thus was
properly submitted to the jury. P. 30.
(d) This Seventh Amendment holding is limited in various respects: It does not
address the jury' s role in an ordinary inverse condemnation suit, or attempt a precise
demarcation of the respective provinces of judge and jury in determining whether a
zoning decision substantially advances legitimate governmental interests that would
extend to other contexts. Del Monte Dunes'argument was not that the city had followed
its zoning ordinances and policies but rather that it had not done so. As is often true in
§1983 actions, the disputed questions were whether the government had denied a
constitutional right in acting outside the bounds of its authority, and, if so, the extent of
any resulting damages. These were questions for the jury. Pp. 30-32.
Justice Kennedy , joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Stevens , and Justice Thomas
, concluded in Part IV-A-2 that the city' s request to create an exception to the general
Seventh Amendment rule governing §1983 actions for claims alleging violations of the
Fifth Amendment Takings Clause must be rejected. Pp. 19-27.
1. This Court has declined in other contexts to classify §1983 actions based on the
nature of the underlying right asserted, and the city provides no persuasive justification
for adopting a different rule for Seventh Amendment purposes. P. 20.

43
 2. Even when analyzed not as a §1983 action simpliciter, but as a §1983 action
seeking redress for an uncompensated taking, Del Monte Dunes'suit remains an action
at law. Contrary to the city' s submission, a formal condemnation proceeding--as to which
the Court has said there is no constitutional jury right, e.g., United States v. Reynolds,
397 U. S. 14 , 18--is not the controlling analogy here. That analogy is rendered
inapposite by fundamental differences between a condemnation proceeding and a
§1983 action to redress an uncompensated taking. Most important, when the
government initiates condemnation proceedings, it concedes the landowner' s right to
receive just compensation and seeks a mere determination of the amount of
compensation due. Liability simply is not an issue. This difference renders the analogy
not only unhelpful but inapposite. See, e.g., Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy R. Co. , 3
F. Cas. 821, 829 (No. 1, 617) (CC NJ). Moreover, when the government condemns
property for public use, it provides the landowner a forum for seeking just compensation
as is required by the Constitution. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 316 . If the condemnation
proceedings do not, in fact, deny the landowner just compensation, the government' s
actions are neither unconstitutional nor unlawful. E.g., Williamson, supra, at 195. In this
case, however, Del Monte Dunes was denied not only its property but also just
compensation or even an adequate forum for seeking it. In these circumstances, the
original understanding of the Takings Clause and historical practice support the
conclusion that the cause of action sounds in tort and is most analogous to the various
actions that lay at common law to recover damages for interference with property
interests. In such common-law actions, there was a right to trial by jury. See, e.g.,
Feltner, supra, at 349. The city' s argument that because the Constitution allows the
government to take property for public use, a taking for that purpose cannot be tortious
or unlawful, is rejected. When the government repudiates its duty to provide just
compensation, see, e.g., First English, supra, at 315, it violates the Constitution, and its
actions are unlawful and tortious. Pp. 20-27.
Justice Scalia concluded:
1. The Seventh Amendment provides respondents with a right to a jury trial on their
§1983 claim. All §1983 actions must be treated alike insofar as that right is concerned.
Section 1983 establishes a unique, or at least distinctive, cause of action, in that the
legal duty which is the basis for relief is ultimately defined not by the claim-creating
statute itself, but by an extrinsic body of law to which the statute refers, namely "federal
rights elsewhere conferred." Baker v. McCollan , 443 U. S. 137, 144 , n. 3. The question
before the Court then is not what common-law action is most analogous to some generic
suit seeking compensation for a Fifth Amendment taking, but what common-law action is
most analogous to a § 1983 claim . This Court has concluded that all §1983 claims
should be characterized in the same way, Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U. S. 261, 271-272 , as
tort actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries, id., at 276. Pp. 1-5.
2. It is clear that a §1983 cause of action for damages is a tort action for which jury
trial would have been provided at common law. See, e.g., Curtis v. Loether , 415 U. S.
189, 195 . Pp. 5-8.
3. The trial court properly submitted the particular issues raised by respondents'
§1983 claim to the jury. The question whether they were deprived of all economically
viable use of their property presents primarily a question of fact appropriate for jury
consideration. As to the question whether petitioner' s rejection of respondents'building
plans substantially advanced a legitimate public purpose, the subquestion whether the
government' s asserted basis for its challenged action represents a legitimate state
interest was properly removed from the jury' s cognizance, but the subquestion whether
that legitimate state interest is substantially furthered by the challenged government

44
action is, at least in the highly particularized context of the present case, a jury question.
Pp. 8-10.
Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion for a
unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts III, IV-A-1, IV-B, IV-C, and V, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and
Thomas, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV-A-2, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and Stevens and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part, in which O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

CITY OF MONTEREY, PETITIONER v. DEL MONTE

DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD., and MONTEREY-
DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the ninth circuit
[May 24, 1999]

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV-A-2.
This case began with attempts by the respondent, Del Monte Dunes, and its
predecessor in interest to develop a parcel of land within the jurisdiction of the petitioner,
the city of Monterey. The city, in a series of repeated rejections, denied proposals to
develop the property, each time imposing more rigorous demands on the developers.
Del Monte Dunes brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. After protracted litigation, the
case was submitted to the jury on Del Monte Dunes'theory that the city effected a
regulatory taking or otherwise injured the property by unlawful acts, without paying
compensation or providing an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the loss. The jury
found for Del Monte Dunes, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The petitioner contends that the regulatory takings claim should not have been
decided by the jury and that the Court of Appeals adopted an erroneous standard for
regulatory takings liability. We need not decide all of the questions presented by the
petitioner, nor need we examine each of the points given by the Court of Appeals in its
decision to affirm. The controlling question is whether, given the city's apparent
concession that the instructions were a correct statement of the law, the matter was
properly submitted to the jury. We conclude that it was,
and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
I
A
The property which respondent and its predecessor in interest (landowners) sought to
develop was a 37.6 acre ocean-front parcel located in the city of Monterey, at or near the
city's boundary to the north, where Highway 1 enters. With the exception of the ocean
and a state park located to the northeast, the parcel was virtually surrounded by a
railroad right-of-way and properties devoted to industrial, commercial, and multifamily
residential uses. The parcel itself was zoned for multifamily residential use under the
city's general zoning ordinance.
The parcel had not been untouched by its urban and industrial proximities. A sewer
line housed in 15-foot man-made dunes covered with jute matting and surrounded by
snow fencing traversed the property. Trash, dumped in violation of the law, had
accumulated on the premises. The parcel had been used for many years by an oil
company as a terminal and tank farm where large quantities of oil were delivered,

45
stored, and reshipped. When the company stopped using the site, it had removed its oil
tanks but left behind tank pads, an industrial complex, pieces of pipe, broken concrete,
and oil-soaked sand. The company had introduced nonnative ice plant to prevent
erosion and to control soil conditions around the oil tanks. Ice plant secretes a substance
that forces out other plants and is not compatible with the parcel' s natural flora. By the
time the landowners sought to develop the property, ice plant had spread to some 25
percent of the parcel, and, absent human intervention, would continue to advance,
endangering and perhaps eliminating the parcel' s remaining natural vegetation.
The natural flora the ice plant encroached upon included buckwheat, the natural
habitat of the endangered Smith' s Blue Butterfly. The butterfly lives for one week, travels
a maximum of 200 feet, and must land on a mature, flowering buckwheat plant to
survive. Searches for the butterfly from 1981 through 1985 yielded but a single larva,
discovered in 1984. No other specimens had been found on the property, and the parcel
was quite isolated from other possible habitats of the butterfly.
B
In 1981 the landowners submitted an application to develop the property in
conformance with the city' s zoning and general plan requirements. Although the zoning
requirements permitted the development of up to 29 housing units per acre, or more
than 1,000 units for the entire parcel, the landowners'proposal was limited to 344
residential units. In 1982 the city' s planning commission denied the application but stated
that a proposal for 264 units would receive favorable consideration. In keeping with the
suggestion, the landowners submitted a revised proposal for 264 units. In late 1983,
however, the planning commission again denied the application. The commission once
more requested a reduction in the scale of the development, this time saying a plan for
224 units would be received with favor. The landowners returned to the drawing board
and prepared a proposal for 224 units, which, its previous statements notwithstanding,
the planning commission denied in 1984. The landowners appealed to the city council,
which overruled the planning commission' s denial and referred the project back to the
commission, with instructions to consider a proposal for 190 units.
The landowners once again reduced the scope of their development proposal to
comply with the city' s request, and submitted four specific, detailed site plans, each for a
total of 190 units for the whole parcel. Even so, the planning commission rejected the
landowners'proposal later in 1984. Once more the landowners appealed to the city
council. The council again overruled the commission, finding the proposal conceptually
satisfactory and in conformance with the city' s previous decisions regarding, inter alia ,
density, number of units, location on the property, and access. The council then
approved one of the site plans, subject to various specific conditions, and granted an 18-
month conditional use permit for the proposed development.
The landowners spent most of the next year revising their proposal and taking other
steps to fulfill the city'
s conditions. Their final plan, submitted in 1985, devoted 17.9 of
the 37.6 acres to public open space (including a public beach and areas for the
restoration and preservation of the buckwheat habitat), 7.9 acres to open, landscaped
areas, and 6.7 acres to public and private streets (including public parking and access to
the beach). Only 5.1 acres were allocated to buildings and patios. The plan was
designed, in accordance with the city' s demands, to provide the public with a beach, a
buffer zone between the development and the adjoining state park, and view corridors
so the buildings would not be visible to motorists on the nearby highway; the proposal
also called for restoring and preserving as much of the sand dune structure and
buckwheat habitat as possible consistent with development and the city' s requirements.
After detailed review of the proposed buildings, roads, and parking facilities, the city' s
architectural review committee approved the plan. Following hearings before the

46
planning commission, the commission' s professional staff found the final plan addressed
and substantially satisfied the city' s conditions. It proposed the planning commission
make specific findings to this effect and recommended the plan be approved.
In January 1986, less than two months before the landowners'conditional use permit
was to expire, the planning commission rejected the recommendation of its staff and
denied the development plan. The landowners appealed to the city council, also
requesting a 12-month extension of their permit to allow them time to attempt to comply
with any additional requirements the council might impose. The permit was extended
until a hearing could be held before the city council in June 1986. After the hearing, the
city council denied the final plan, not only declining to specify measures the landowners
could take to satisfy the concerns raised by the council but also refusing to extend the
conditional use permit to allow time to address those concerns. The council' s decision,
moreover, came at a time when a sewer moratorium issued by another agency would
have prevented or at least delayed development based on a new plan.
The council did not base its decision on the landowners'failure to meet any of the
specific conditions earlier prescribed by the city. Rather, the council made general
findings that the landowners had not provided adequate access for the development
(even though the landowners had twice changed the specific access plans to comply
with the city's demands and maintained they could satisfy the city' s new objections if
granted an extension), that the plan' s layout would damage the environment (even
though the location of the development on the property was necessitated by the city' s
demands for a public beach, view corridors, and a buffer zone next to the state park),
and that the plan would disrupt the habitat of the Smith' s Blue Butterfly (even though the
plan would remove the encroaching ice plant and preserve or restore buckwheat habitat
on almost half of the property, and even though only one larva had ever been found on
the property).
C
After five years, five formal decisions, and 19 different site plans, 10 Tr. 1294-1295
(Feb. 9, 1994), respondent Del Monte Dunes decided the city would not permit
development of the property under any circumstances. Del Monte Dunes commenced
suit against the city in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging, inter alia, that denial of the final
development proposal was a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection
provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and an uncompensated, and so
unconstitutional, regulatory taking.
The District Court dismissed the claims as unripe under Williamson County Regional
Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), on the
grounds that Del Monte Dunes had neither obtained a definitive decision as to the
development the city would allow nor sought just compensation in state court. The Court
of Appeals reversed. 920 F. 2d 1496 (CA9 1990). After reviewing at some length the
history of attempts to develop the property, the court found that to require additional
proposals would implicate the concerns about repetitive and unfair procedures
expressed in MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. 340, 350 , n. 7
(1986), and that the city' s decision was sufficiently final to render Del Monte Dunes'
claim ripe for review. 920 F. 2d, at 1501-1506. The court also found that because the
State of California had not provided a compensatory remedy for temporary regulatory
takings when the city issued its final denial, see First English Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304 (1987), Del Monte Dunes
was not required to pursue relief in state court as a precondition to federal relief. See
920 F. 2d, at 1506-1507.

47
 On remand, the District Court determined, over the city' s objections, to submit Del
Monte Dunes'takings and equal protection claims to a jury but to reserve the substantive
due process claim for decision by the court. Del Monte Dunes argued to the jury that,
although the city had a right to regulate its property, the combined effect of the city' s
various demands--that the development be invisible from the highway, that a buffer be
provided between the development and the state park, and that the public be provided
with a beach--was to force development into the "bowl" area of the parcel. As a result,
Del Monte Dunes argued, the city' s subsequent decision that the bowl contained
sensitive buckwheat habitat which could not be disturbed blocked the development of
any portion of the property. See 10 Tr. 1288-1294, 1299-1302, 1317 (Feb. 9, 1994).
While conceding the legitimacy of the city' s stated regulatory purposes, Del Monte
Dunes emphasized the tortuous and protracted history of attempts to develop the
property, as well as the shifting and sometimes inconsistent positions taken by the city
throughout the process, and argued that it had been treated in an unfair and irrational
manner. Del Monte Dunes also submitted evidence designed to undermine the validity of
the asserted factual premises for the city' s denial of the final proposal and to suggest
that the city had considered buying, or inducing the State to buy, the property for public
use as early as 1979, reserving some money for this purpose but delaying or
abandoning its plans for financial reasons. See id., at 1303-1306. The State of
California' s purchase of the property during the pendency of the litigation may have
bolstered the credibility of Del Monte Dunes'position.
At the close of argument, the District Court instructed the jury it should find for Del
Monte Dunes if it found either that Del Monte Dunes had been denied all economically
viable use of its property or that "the city' s decision to reject the plaintiff'
s 190 unit
development proposal did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose." App.
303. With respect to the first inquiry, the jury was instructed, in relevant part, as follows:
"For the purpose of a taking claim, you will find that the plaintiff has been denied all
economically viable use of its property, if, as the result of the city' s regulatory decision
there remains no permissible or beneficial use for that property. In proving whether the
plaintiff has been denied all economically viable use of its property, it is not enough that
the plaintiff show that after the challenged action by the city the property diminished in
value or that it would suffer a serious economic loss as the result of the city' s actions."
Ibid.
With respect to the second inquiry, the jury received the following instruction:
"Public bodies, such as the city, have the authority to take actions which substantially
advance legitimate public interest[s] and legitimate public interest[s] can include
protecting the environment, preserving open space agriculture, protecting the health and
safety of its citizens, and regulating the quality of the community by looking at
development. So one of your jobs as jurors is to decide if the city' s decision here
substantially advanced any such legitimate public purpose.
"The regulatory actions of the city or any agency substantially advanc[e] a legitimate
public purpose if the action bears a reasonable relationship to that objective.
"Now, if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that there was no reasonable
relationship between the city' s denial of the ... proposal and legitimate public purpose,
you should find in favor of the plaintiff. If you find that there existed a reasonable
relationship between the city' s decision and a legitimate public purpose, you should find
in favor of the city. As long as the regulatory action by the city substantially advances
their legitimate public purpose, ... its underlying motives and reasons are not to be
inquired into." Id., at 304.
The essence of these instructions was proposed by the city. See Tr. 11 (June 17, 1994).

48
 The jury delivered a general verdict for Del Monte Dunes on its takings claim, a
separate verdict for Del Monte Dunes on its equal protection claim, and a damages
award of $1.45 million. Tr. 2 (Feb. 17, 1994). After the jury' s verdict, the District Court
ruled for the city on the substantive due process claim, stating that its ruling was not
inconsistent with the jury' s verdict on the equal protection or the takings claim. App. to
Pet. for Cert. A-39. The court later denied the city' s motions for a new trial or for
judgment as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 95 F. 3d 1422 (CA9 1996). The court first ruled that
the District Court did not err in allowing Del Monte Dunes'regulatory takings claim to be
tried to a jury, id., at 1428, because Del Monte Dunes had a right to a jury trial under
§1983, id., at 1426-1427, and whether Del Monte Dunes had been denied all
economically viable use of the property and whether the city' s denial of the final proposal
substantially advanced legitimate public interests were, on the facts of this case,
questions suitable for the jury, id., at 1430. The court ruled that sufficient evidence had
been presented to the jury from which it reasonably could have decided each of these
questions in Del Monte Dunes'favor. Id., at 1430-1434. Because upholding the verdict
on the regulatory takings claim was sufficient to support the award of damages, the court
did not address the equal protection claim. Id., at 1426.
The questions presented in the city' s petition for certiorari were (1) whether issues of
liability were properly submitted to the jury on Del Monte Dunes'regulatory takings claim,
(2) whether the Court of Appeals impermissibly based its decision on a standard that
allowed the jury to reweigh the reasonableness of the city' s land-use decision, and (3)
whether the Court of Appeals erred in assuming that the rough-proportionality standard
of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994), applied to this case. We granted
certiorari, 523 U. S. 1045 (1998), and now address these questions in reverse order.
II
In the course of holding a reasonable jury could have found the city' s denial of the
final proposal not substantially related to legitimate public interests, the Court of Appeals
stated: "[e]ven if the City had a legitimate interest in denying Del Monte' s development
application, its action must be `roughly proportional'to furthering that interest... . That is,
the City' s denial must be related `both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed
development.'" 95 F. 3d, at 1430, quoting Dolan, supra, at 391.
Although in a general sense concerns for proportionality animate the Takings Clause,
see Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960) ("The Fifth Amendment' s
guarantee . . . was designed to bar 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"), we have not extended the rough-proportionality test of Dolan beyond the special
context of exactions--land-use decisions conditioning approval of development on the
dedication of property to public use. See Dolan, supra, at 385; Nollan v. California
Coastal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825, 841 (1987). The rule applied in Dolan considers
whether dedications demanded as conditions of development are proportional to the
development' s anticipated impacts. It was not designed to address, and is not readily
applicable to, the much different questions arising where, as here, the landowner' s
challenge is based not on excessive exactions but on denial of development. We
believe, accordingly, that the rough-proportionality test of Dolan is inapposite to a case
such as this one.
The instructions given to the jury, however, did not mention proportionality, let alone
require it to find for Del Monte Dunes unless the city' s actions were roughly proportional
to its asserted interests. The Court of Appeals'discussion of rough proportionality, we
conclude, was unnecessary to its decision to sustain the jury' s verdict. Although the
court stated that "[s]ignificant evidence supports Del Monte' s claim that the City' s actions

49
were disproportional to both the nature and extent of the impact of the proposed
development," 95 F. 3d, at 1432, it did so only after holding that
"Del Monte provided evidence sufficient to rebut each of these reasons [for denying the
final proposal]. Taken together, Del Monte argued that the City' s reasons for denying
their application were invalid and that it unfairly intended to forestall any reasonable
development of the Dunes. In light of the evidence proffered by Del Monte, the City has
incorrectly argued that no rational juror could conclude that the City' s denial of Del
Monte' s application lacked a sufficient nexus with its stated objectives." Id., at 1431-
1432.
Given this holding, it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to discuss rough
proportionality. That it did so is irrelevant to our disposition of the case.
III
The city challenges the Court of Appeals'holding that the jury could have found the
city'
s denial of the final development plan not reasonably related to legitimate public
interests. Although somewhat obscure, the city' s argument is not cast as a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence; rather, the city maintains that the Court of Appeals
adopted a legal standard for regulatory takings liability that allows juries to second-guess
public land-use policy.
As the city itself proposed the essence of the instructions given to the jury, it cannot
now contend that the instructions did not provide an accurate statement of the law. In
any event, although this Court has provided neither a definitive statement of the
elements of a claim for a temporary regulatory taking nor a thorough explanation of the
nature or applicability of the requirement that a regulation substantially advance
legitimate public interests outside the context of required dedications or exactions, cf.,
e.g., Nollan, supra, at 834-835, n. 3, we note that the trial court' s instructions are
consistent with our previous general discussions of regulatory takings liability. See
Dolan, supra, at 385; Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1016
(1992); Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 534 (1992); Nollan, supra, at 834; Keystone
Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 485 (1987); United States v.
Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121, 126 (1985); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447
U. S. 255, 260 (1980). The city did not challenge below the applicability or continued
viability of the general test for regulatory takings liability recited by these authori-
ties and upon which the jury instructions appear to have been modeled. Given the
posture of the case before us,
we decline the suggestions of amici to revisit these
precedents.
To the extent the city contends the judgment sustained by the Court of Appeals was
based upon a jury determination of the reasonableness of its general zoning laws or
land-use policies, its argument can be squared neither with the instructions given to the
jury nor the theory on which the case was tried. The instructions did not ask the jury
whether the city' s zoning ordinances or policies were unreasonable but only whether
"the City' s decision to reject the plaintiff'
s 190 unit development proposal did not
substantially advance a legitimate public purpose," App. 303, that is, whether "there was
no reasonable relationship between the city' s denial of the ... proposal and legitimate
public purpose." Id., at 304. Furthermore, Del Monte Dunes'lawyers were explicit in
conceding that "[t]his case is not about the right of a city, in this case the city of
Monterey, to regulate land." 10 Tr. 1286 (Feb. 9, 1994). See also id., at 1287 (proposals
were made "keeping in mind various regulations and requirements, heights, setbacks,
and densities and all that. That' s not what this case is about"); id., at 1287-1288 ("They
have the right to set height limits. They have the right to talk about where they want
access. That' s not what this case is about. We all accept that in today' s society, cities

50
and counties can tell a land owner what to do to some reasonable extent with their
property"). Though not presented for review, Del Monte Dunes'equal protection
argument that it had received treatment inconsistent with zoning decisions made in favor
of owners of similar properties, and the jury' s verdict for Del Monte Dunes on this claim,
confirm the understanding of the jury and Del Monte Dunes that the complaint was not
about general laws or ordinances but about a particular zoning decision.
The instructions regarding the city' s decision also did not allow the jury to consider
the reasonableness, per se , of the customized, ad hoc conditions imposed on the
property' s development, and Del Monte Dunes did not suggest otherwise. On the
contrary, Del Monte Dunes disclaimed this theory of the case in express terms: "Del
Monte Dunes partnership did not file this lawsuit because they were complaining about
giving the public the beach, keeping it [the development] out of the view shed, devoting
and [giving] to the State all this habitat area. One-third [of the] property is going to be
given away for the public use forever. That' s not what we filed the lawsuit about." Id., at
1288; see also id., at 1288-1289 (conceding that the city may "ask an owner to give
away a third of the property without getting a dime in compensation for it and providing
parking lots for the public and habitats for the butterfly, and boardwalks").
Rather, the jury was instructed to consider whether the city' s denial of the final
proposal was reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose. Even with regard to this
issue, however, the jury was not given free rein to second-guess the city' s land-use
policies. Rather, the jury was instructed, in unmistakable terms, that the various
purposes asserted by the city were legitimate public interests. See App. 304.
The jury, furthermore, was not asked to evaluate the city' s decision in isolation but
rather in context, and, in particular, in light of the tortuous and protracted history of
attempts to develop the property. See, e.g., 10 Tr. 1294-1295 (Feb. 9, 1994). Although
Del Monte Dunes was allowed to introduce evidence challenging the asserted factual
bases for the city' s decision, it also highlighted the shifting nature of the city's demands
and the inconsistency of its decision with the recommendation of its professional staff, as
well as with its previous decisions. See, e.g., id., at 1300. Del Monte Dunes also
introduced evidence of the city' s longstanding interest in acquiring the property for public
use. See, e.g., id., at 1303-1306.
In short, the question submitted to the jury on this issue was confined to whether, in
light of all the history and the context of the case, the city' s particular decision to deny
Del Monte Dunes'final development proposal was reasonably related to the city' s
proffered justifications. This question was couched, moreover, in an instruction that had
been proposed in essence by the city, and as to which the city made no objection.
Thus, despite the protests of the city and its amici, it is clear that the Court of Appeals
did not adopt a rule of takings law allowing wholesale interference by judge or jury with
municipal land-use policies, laws, or routine regulatory decisions. To the extent the city
argues that, as a matter of law, its land-use decisions are immune from judicial scrutiny
under all circumstances, its position is contrary to settled regulatory takings principles.
We reject this claim of error.
IV
We next address whether it was proper for the District Court to submit the question of
liability on Del Monte Dunes'regulatory takings claim to the jury. (Before the District
Court, the city agreed it was proper for the jury to assess damages. See Supplemental
Memorandum of Petitioner Re: Court/Jury Trial Issues in No. C86-5042 (ND Cal.), p. 2,
Record, Doc. No. 111.) As the Court of Appeals recognized, the answer depends on
whether Del Monte Dunes had a statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial, and, if it
did, the nature and extent of the right. Del Monte Dunes asserts the right to a jury trial is
conferred by §1983 and by the Seventh Amendment.

51
 Under our precedents, "[b]efore inquiring into the applicability of the Seventh
Amendment, we must `first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly
possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.'" Feltner v. Columbia
Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U. S. 340, 345 (1998) (quoting Tull v. United States, 481
U. S. 412, 417 , n. 3 (1987)); accord Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192 , n. 6 (1974).
The character of §1983 is vital to our Seventh Amendment analysis, but the statute
does not itself confer the jury right. See Feltner, supra, at 345 (quoting Tull, supra, at,
417, n. 3) ("[W]e cannot discern `any congressional intent to grant ... the right to a jury
trial'"). Section 1983 authorizes a party who has been deprived of a federal right under
the color of state law to seek relief through "an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress." Del Monte Dunes contends that the phrase "action at
law" is a term of art implying a right to a jury trial. We disagree, for this is not a
necessary implication.
In Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 583 (1978), we found a statutory right to a jury trial
in part because the statute authorized "legal ... relief." Our decision, however, did not
rest solely on the statute's use of the phrase but relied as well on the statute' s explicit
incorporation of the procedures of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which had been
interpreted to guarantee trial by jury in private actions. Id., at 580. We decline,
accordingly, to find a statutory jury right under §1983 based solely on the authorization
of "an action at law."
As a consequence, we must reach the constitutional question. The Seventh
Amendment provides that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ... ." Consistent
with the textual mandate that the jury right be preserved, our interpretation of the
Amendment has been guided by historical analysis comprising two principal inquiries.
"[W]e ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at law
at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was." Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, 376 (1996). "If the action in question belongs
in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury
in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791." Ibid.
A
With respect to the first inquiry, we have recognized that "suits at common law"
include "not merely suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled
proceedings, but [also] suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and
determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized,
and equitable remedies were administered." Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447 (1830).
The Seventh Amendment thus applies not only to common-law causes of action but also
to statutory causes of action " `analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily
decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily
heard by courts of equity or admiralty.'" Feltner, supra, at 348 (quoting Granfinanciera,
S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989)); accord Curtis, supra, at 193.
1
Del Monte Dunes brought this suit pursuant to §1983 to vindicate its constitutional
rights. We hold that a §1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action at law within the
meaning of the Seventh Amendment. Justice Scalia' s concurring opinion presents a
comprehensive and convincing analysis of the historical and constitutional reasons for
this conclusion. We agree with his analysis and conclusion.
It is undisputed that when the Seventh Amendment was adopted there was no action
equivalent to §1983, framed in specific terms for vindicating constitutional rights. It is
settled law, however, that the Seventh Amendment jury guarantee extends to statutory

52
claims unknown to the common law, so long as the claims can be said to "soun[d]
basically in tort," and seek legal relief. Curtis, 415 U. S., at 195 -196.
As Justice Scalia explains, see post, at 5-8, there can be no doubt that claims
brought pursuant to §1983 sound in tort. Just as common-law tort actions provide
redress for interference with protected personal or property interests, §1983 provides
relief for invasions of rights protected under federal law. Recognizing the essential
character of the statute, " `[w]e have repeatedly noted that 42 U. S. C. §1983 creates a
species of tort liability,'" Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 483 (1994) (quoting
Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S. 299, 305 (1986)), and have
interpreted the statute in light of the "background of tort liability," Monroe v. Pape, 365
U. S. 167, 187 (1961) (overruled on other grounds, Monell v. New York City Dept. of
Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978)); accord Heck, supra, at 483. Our settled
understanding of §1983 and the Seventh Amendment thus compel the conclusion that a
suit for legal relief brought under the statute is an action at law.
Here Del Monte Dunes sought legal relief. It was entitled to proceed in federal court
under §1983 because, at the time of the city' s actions, the State of California did not
provide a compensatory remedy for temporary regulatory takings. See First English 482
U. S., at 308 -311. The constitutional injury alleged, therefore, is not that property was
taken but that it was taken without just compensation. Had the city paid for the property
or had an adequate postdeprivation remedy been available, Del Monte Dunes would
have suffered no constitutional injury from the taking alone. See Williamson, 473 U. S.,
at 194 -195. Because its statutory action did not accrue until it was denied just
compensation, in a strict sense Del Monte Dunes sought not just compensation per se
but rather damages for the unconstitutional denial of such compensation. Damages for a
constitutional violation are a legal remedy. See, e.g., Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558,
570 (1990) ("Generally, an action for money damages was `the traditional form of relief
offered in the courts of law'") (quoting Curtis, supra, at 196).
Even when viewed as a simple suit for just compensation, we believe Del Monte
Dunes'action sought essentially legal relief. "We have recognized the `general rule'that
monetary relief is legal." Feltner, 523 U. S., at 352 (quoting Teamsters v. Terry, supra, at
570). Just compensation, moreover, differs from equitable restitution and other monetary
remedies available in equity, for in determining just compensation, "the question is what
has the owner lost, not what has the taker gained." Boston Chamber of Commerce v.
Boston, 217 U. S. 189, 195 (1910). As its name suggests, then, just compensation is,
like ordinary money damages, a compensatory remedy. The Court has recognized that
compensation is a purpose "traditionally associated with legal relief." Feltner, supra, at
352. Because Del Monte Dunes'statutory suit sounded in tort and sought legal relief, it
was an action at law.
2
In attempt to avoid the force of this conclusion, the city urges us to look not to the
statutory basis of Del Monte Dunes'claim but rather to the underlying constitutional right
asserted. At the very least, the city asks us to create an exception to the general
Seventh Amendment rule governing §1983 actions for claims alleging violations of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95
F. 3d 1084 (CA11 1996) (finding, in tension with the Ninth Circuit' s decision in this case,
that there is no right to a jury trial on a takings claim brought under §1983). Because the
jury's role in estimating just compensation in condemnation proceedings was
inconsistent and unclear at the time the Seventh Amendment was adopted, this Court
has said "that there is no constitutional right to a jury in eminent domain proceedings."
United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S. 14, 18 (1970); accord, Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S.

53
548, 593 (1897). The city submits that the analogy to formal condemnation proceedings
is controlling, so that there is no jury right here.
As Justice Scalia notes, see post, at 3-5, we have declined in other contexts to
classify §1983 actions based on the nature of the underlying right asserted, and the city
provides no persuasive justification for adopting a different rule for Seventh Amendment
purposes. Even when analyzed not as a §1983 action simpliciter, however, but as a
§1983 action seeking redress for an uncompensated taking, Del Monte Dunes'suit
remains an action at law.
Although condemnation proceedings spring from the same Fifth Amendment right to
compensation which, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, is applicable here,
see First English, supra, at 315 (citing Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933)),
a condemnation action differs in important respects from a §1983 action to redress an
uncompensated taking. Most important, when the government initiates condemnation
proceedings, it concedes the landowner' s right to receive just compensation and seeks a
mere determination of the amount of compensation due. Liability simply is not an issue.
As a result, even if condemnation proceedings were an appropriate analogy,
condemnation practice would provide little guidance on the specific question whether Del
Monte Dunes was entitled to a jury determination of liability.
This difference renders the analogy to condemnation proceedings not only unhelpful
but also inapposite. When the government takes property without initiating
condemnation proceedings, it "shifts to the landowner the burden to discover the
encroachment and to take affirmative action to recover just compensation." United
States v. Clarke, 445 U. S. 253, 257 (1980). Even when the government does not
dispute its seizure of the property or its obligation to pay for it, the mere "shifting of the
initiative from the condemning authority to the condemnee" can place the landowner "at
a significant disadvantage." Id., at 258; cf. id., at 255 ("There are important legal and
practical differences between an inverse condemnation suit and a condemnation
proceeding"); 84 Stat. 1906, §304, 42 U. S. C. §4654 (recognizing, at least implicitly, the
added burden by providing for recovery of attorney' s fees in cases where the
government seizes property without initiating condemnation proceedings but not in
ordinary condemnation cases). Where, as here, the government not only denies liability
but fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy (thus refusing to submit the
question of liability to an impartial arbiter), the disadvantage to the owner becomes all
the greater. At least in these circumstances, the analogy to ordinary condemnation
procedures is simply untenable.
Our conclusion is confirmed by precedent. Early authority finding no jury right in a
condemnation proceeding did so on the ground that condemnation did not involve the
determination of legal rights because liability was undisputed:
"We are therefore of opinion that the trial by jury is preserved inviolate in the sense of
the constitution, when in all criminal cases, and in civil cases when a right is in
controversy in a court of law, it is secured to each party. In cases of this description
[condemnation proceedings], the right to take, and the right to compensation, are
admitted; the only question is the amount, which may be submitted to any impartial
tribunal the legislature may designate." Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy Railroad Co., 3
F. Cas. 821, 829 (No. 1, 617) (CCD N. J. 1830) (Baldwin, Circuit
Justice).
(Although Justice Souter ' s dissenting opinion takes issue with this distinction, its
arguments are unpersuasive. First, it correctly notes that when the government initiates
formal condemnation procedures, a landowner may question whether the proposed
taking is for public use. The landowner who raises this issue, however, seeks not to
establish the government' s liability for damages, but to prevent the government from

54
taking his property at all. As the dissent recognizes, the relief desired by a landowner
making this contention is analogous not to damages but to an injunction; it should be no
surprise, then, that the landowner is not entitled to a jury trial on his entitlement to a
remedy that sounds not in law but in equity. Second, the dissent refers to "the diversity
of rationales underlying early state cases in which the right of a direct condemnee to a
jury trial was considered and decided." Post, at 10-11. The dissent mentions only the
rationale that because the government is immune from suit for damages, it can qualify
any remedy it provides by dispensing with the right to a jury trial. The cases cited for this
proposition--two state-court cases antedating the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment and an off-point federal case--do not implicate the Fifth Amendment. Even if
the sovereign immunity rationale retains its vitality in cases where this Amendment is
applicable, cf. First English, 482 U. S., at 316 , n. 9, it is neither limited to nor
coextensive with takings claims. Rather, it would apply to all constitutional suits against
the Federal Government or the States, but not to constitutional suits such as this one
against municipalities like the city of Monterey. Third, the dissent contends that the
distinction we have drawn is absent from our condemnation cases. Even if this were
true--and it is not obvious that it is--equally absent from those decisions is any analysis
or principle that would extend beyond the narrow context of direct condemnation suits to
actions such as this one. Rather, as apparent even from the passages quoted by the
dissent, see post , at 4-7 and n. 1, these cases rely only on the Court' s perception of
historical English and Colonial practice in direct condemnation cases. Nothing in these
cases detracts from the authorities cited in this opinion that do support the distinction we
draw between direct condemnation and a suit like this one. Finally, the existence of a
different historical practice distinguishes direct condemnation from an ordinary tort case
in which the defendant concedes liability. See post, at 11, n. 5.)
Condemnation proceedings differ from the instant cause of action in another
fundamental respect as well. When the government condemns property for public use, it
provides the landowner a forum for seeking just compensation, as is required by the
Constitution. See First English, supra, at 316. If the condemnation proceedings do not, in
fact, deny the landowner just compensation, the government' s actions are neither
unconstitutional nor unlawful. See Williamson, 473 U. S., at 194 ("The Fifth Amendment
does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just
compensation"). Even when the government takes property without initiating
condemnation proceedings, there is no constitutional violation " `unless or until the state
fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the property loss.'" Id., at 195
(quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517, 532 , n. 12 (1984)). In this case, however,
Del Monte Dunes was denied not only its property but also just compensation or even an
adequate forum for seeking it. That is the gravamen of the §1983 claim.
In these circumstances, we conclude the cause of action sounds in tort and is most
analogous to the various actions that lay at common law to recover damages for
interference with property interests. Our conclusion is consistent with the original
understanding of the Takings Clause and with historical practice.
Early opinions, nearly contemporaneous with the adoption of the Bill of Rights,
suggested that when the government took property but failed to provide a means for
obtaining just compensation, an action to recover damages for the government' s actions
would sound in tort. See, e.g., Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 Bay 38, 61 (S. C. 1796)
(opinion of Waties, J.) ("But suppose they could sue, what would be the nature of the
action? It could not be founded on contract, for there was none. It must then be on a tort
; it must be an action of trespass, in which the jury would give a reparation in damages .
Is not this acknowledging that the act of the legislature [in authorizing uncompensated
takings] is a tortious act?") (emphases in original); Gardner v. Village of Newburgh, 2

55
Johns. Ch. 162, 164, 166 (N. Y. 1816) (Kent, Ch.) (uncompensated governmental
interference with property right would support a tort action at law for nuisance).
Consistent with this understanding, and as a matter of historical practice, when the
government has taken property without providing an adequate means for obtaining
redress, suits to recover just compensation have been framed as common-law tort
actions. See, e.g., Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U. S. 546 (1914)
(nuisance); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872) (trespass on the case);
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833) (unspecified tort);
Bradshaw v. Rodgers, 20 Johns. 103 (N. Y. 1822) (trespass). Tort actions of these
descriptions lay at common law, 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of
England, ch. 12 (1768) (trespass; trespass on the case); id., ch. 13 (trespass on the
case for nuisance), and in these actions, as in other suits at common law, there was a
right to trial by jury, see, e.g., Feltner, 523 U. S., at 349 ("Actions on the case, like other
actions at law, were tried before juries").
( Justice Souter' s criticism of our reliance on these early authorities misses the point
of our analysis. We do not contend that the landowners were always successful. As the
dissent makes clear, prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
concomitant incorporation of the Takings Clause against the States, a variety of
obstacles--including various traditional immunities, the lack of a constitutional right, and
the resulting possibility of legislative justification--stood in the way of the landowner who
sought redress for an uncompensated taking. Rather, our point is that the suits were
attempted and were understood to sound in tort. It is therefore ironic that the dissent
invokes a law review article discussing such suits entitled "The First Constitutional Tort:
The Remedial Revolution in Nineteenth-Century State Just Compensation Law." Post, at
15-16 (citing Brauneis, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 57 (1999)). It is true, as the dissenting opinion
observes, that claims for just compensation were sometimes brought in quasi contract
rather than tort. See, e.g., United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445 , 458-
465 (1903) (overruled on other grounds, United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.,
312 U. S. 592 (1941)) (comparing claims for just compensation brought in quasi-contract
with just-compensation claims brought in tort). The historical existence of quasi contract
suits for just compensation does nothing to undermine our Seventh Amendment
analysis, however, since quasi contract was frequently available to the victim of a tort
who elected to waive the tort and proceed instead in quasi contract. See, e.g., W.
Prosser, Law of Torts §110 (1941). In any event, quasi contract was itself an action at
law. See, e.g., 1 G. Palmer, Restitution §§1.2, 2.2-2.3 (1978); F. Woodward, Quasi
Contracts §6 (1913).)
The city argues that because the Constitution allows the government to take property
for public use, a taking for that purpose cannot be tortious or unlawful. We reject this
conclusion. Although the government acts lawfully when, pursuant to proper
authorization, it takes property and provides just compensation, the government' s action
is lawful solely because it assumes a duty, imposed by the Constitution, to provide just
compensation. See First English, 482 U. S., at 315 (citing Jacobs, 290 U. S., at 16 ).
When the government repudiates this duty, either by denying just compensation in fact
or by refusing to provide procedures through which compensation may be sought, it
violates the Constitution. In those circumstances the government' s actions are not only
unconstitutional but unlawful and tortious as well. See Gardner v. Village of Newburgh,
supra, at 166, 168 ("[T]o render the exercise of the [eminent domain] power valid," the
government must provide landowner "fair compensation"; "[u]ntil, then, some provision
be made for affording him compensation, it would be unjust, and contrary to the first
principles of government" to deprive plaintiff of his property rights; absent such a
provision, the plaintiff "would be entitled to his action at law for the interruption of his

56
right"); Beatty v. United States, 203 F. 620, 626 (CA4 1913) ("The taking of property by
condemnation under the power of eminent domain is compulsory. The party is deprived
of his property against his will. It is in effect a lawful trespass committed by the
sovereign, and lawful only on the condition that the damages inflicted by the trespass
are paid to the injured party. The analogy to a suit at common law for trespass is close
and complete").
(The argument that an uncompensated taking is not tortious because the landowner
seeks just compensation rather than additional damages for the deprivation of a remedy
reveals the same misunderstanding. Simply put, there is no constitutional or tortious
injury until the landowner is denied just compensation. That the damages to which the
landowner is entitled for this injury are measured by the just compensation he has been
denied is neither surprising nor significant.)
B
Having decided Del Monte Dunes'§1983 suit was an action at law, we must
determine whether the particular issues of liability were proper for determination by the
jury. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370 (1996). In actions at
law, issues that are proper for the jury must be submitted to it "to preserve the right to a
jury's resolution of the ultimate dispute," as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. Id.,
at 377. We determine whether issues are proper for the jury, when possible, "by using
the historical method, much as we do in characterizing the suits and actions within which
[the issues] arise." Id., at 378. We look to history to determine whether the particular
issues, or analogous ones, were decided by judge or by jury in suits at common law at
the time the Seventh Amendment was adopted. Where history does not provide a clear
answer, we look to precedent and functional considerations. Id., at 384.
1
Just as no exact analogue of Del Monte Dunes'§1983 suit can be identified at
common law, so also can we find no precise analogue for the specific test of liability
submitted to the jury in this case. We do know that in suits sounding in tort for money
damages, questions of liability were decided by the jury, rather than the judge, in most
cases. This allocation preserved the jury' s role in resolving what was often the heart of
the dispute between plaintiff and defendant. Although these general observations
provide some guidance on the proper allocation between judge and jury of the liability
issues in this case, they do not establish a definitive answer.
2
We look next to our existing precedents. Although this Court has decided many
regulatory takings cases, none of our decisions has addressed the proper allocation of
liability determinations between judge and jury in explicit terms. This is not surprising.
Most of our regulatory takings decisions have reviewed suits against the United States,
see, e.g., United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121 (1985); Hodel
v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264 (1981), suits
decided by state courts, see, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994); Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003 (1992); Nollan v. California Coastal
Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304 (1987), or suits seeking only injunctive relief, see,
e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470 (1987). It is settled
law that the Seventh Amendment does not apply in these contexts. Lehman v. Nakshian,
453 U. S. 156, 160 (1981) (suits against the United States); Curtis, 415 U. S., at 192,
n. 6 (suits brought in state court); Parsons, 3 Pet., at 447 (suits seeking only equitable
relief).
In Williamson, we did review a regulatory takings case in which the plaintiff landowner
sued a county planning commission in federal court for money damages under §1983.

57
473 U. S., at 182 . Whether the commission had denied the plaintiff all economically
viable use of the property had been submitted to the jury. Id., at 191, and n. 12. Although
the Court did not consider the point, it assumed the propriety of this procedure. E.g., id.,
at 191 ("It is not clear whether the jury would have found that the respondent had been
denied all reasonable beneficial use of the property had any of the eight objections been
met through the grant of a variance... . Accordingly, until the Commission determines
that no variances will be granted, it is impossible for the jury to find, on this record,
whether respondent `will be unable to derive economic benefit'from the land").
Williamson is not a direct holding, however, and we must look for further guidance.
We turn next to considerations of process and function.
3
In actions at law predominantly factual issues are in most cases allocated to the jury.
See Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 657 (1935). The
allocation rests on a firm historical foundation, see, e.g., 1 E. Coke, Institutes 155b
(1628) ("ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices; ad quaestionem juris non
respondent juratores") , and serves "to preserve the right to a jury' s resolution of the
ultimate dispute," Markman, supra, at 377.
Almost from the inception of our regulatory takings doctrine, we have held that
whether a regulation of property goes so far that "there must be an exercise of eminent
domain and compensation to sustain the act ... depends upon the particular facts."
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 413 (1922); accord Keystone
Bituminous Coal, supra, at 473-474. Consistent with this understanding, we have
described determinations of liability in regulatory takings cases as " `essentially ad hoc,
factual inquiries,'" Lucas, supra, at 1015 (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York
City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978)), requiring "complex factual assessments of the
purposes and economic effects of government actions," Yee, 503 U. S., at 523 .
In accordance with these pronouncements, we hold that the issue whether a
landowner has been deprived of all economically viable use of his property is a
predominantly factual question. As our implied acknowledgment of the procedure in
Williamson, supra, suggests, in actions at law otherwise within the purview of the
Seventh Amendment, this question is for the jury.
The jury' s role in determining whether a land-use decision substantially advances
legitimate public interests within the meaning of our regulatory takings doctrine presents
a more difficult question. Although our cases make clear that this inquiry involves an
essential factual component, see Yee, supra, at 523, it no doubt has a legal aspect as
well, and is probably best understood as a mixed question of fact and law.
In this case, the narrow question submitted to the jury was whether, when viewed in
light of the context and protracted history of the development application process, the
city's decision to reject a particular development plan bore a reasonable relationship to
its proffered justifications. See Part III, supra. As the Court of Appeals recognized, this
question was "essentially fact-bound [in] nature." 95 F. 3d, at 1430 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (alteration by Court of Appeals). Under these circumstances, we hold
that it was proper to submit this narrow, factbound question to the jury.
C
We note the limitations of our Seventh Amendment holding. We do not address the
jury's role in an ordinary inverse condemnation suit. The action here was brought under
§1983, a context in which the jury' s role in vindicating constitutional rights has long been
recognized by the federal courts. A federal court, moreover, cannot entertain a takings
claim under §1983 unless or until the complaining landowner has been denied an
adequate postdeprivation remedy. Even the State of California, where this suit arose,
now provides a facially adequate procedure for obtaining just compensation for

58
temporary takings such as this one. Our decision is also circumscribed in its conceptual
reach. The posture of the case does not present an appropriate occasion to define with
precision the elements of a temporary regulatory takings claim; although the city
objected to submitting issues of liability to the jury at all, it approved the instructions that
were submitted to the jury and therefore has no basis to challenge them.
For these reasons, we do not attempt a precise demarcation of the respective
provinces of judge and jury in determining whether a zoning decision substantially
advances legitimate governmental interests. The city and its amici suggest that
sustaining the judgment here will undermine the uniformity of the law and eviscerate
state and local zoning authority by subjecting all land-use decisions to plenary, and
potentially inconsistent, jury review. Our decision raises no such specter. Del Monte
Dunes did not bring a broad challenge to the constitutionality of the city' s general land-
use ordinances or policies, and our holding does not extend to a challenge of that sort.
In such a context, the determination whether the statutory purposes were legitimate, or
whether the purposes, though legitimate, were furthered by the law or general policy,
might well fall within the province of the judge. Nor was the gravamen of Del Monte
Dunes'complaint even that the city' s general regulations were unreasonable as applied
to Del Monte Dunes'property; we do not address the proper trial allocation of the various
questions that might arise in that context. Rather, to the extent Del Monte Dunes'
challenge was premised on unreasonable governmental action, the theory argued and
tried to the jury was that the city'
s denial of the final development permit was inconsistent
not only with the city's general ordinances and policies but even with the shifting ad hoc
restrictions previously imposed by the city. Del Monte Dunes'argument, in short, was not
that the city had followed its zoning ordinances and policies but rather that it had not
done so. As is often true in §1983 actions, the disputed questions were whether the
government had denied a constitutional right in acting outside the bounds of its authority,
and, if so, the extent of any resulting damages. These were questions for the jury.
V
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.

CITY OF MONTEREY, PETITIONER v. DEL MONTE

DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD., and MONTEREY-
DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the ninth circuit
[May 24, 1999]

Justice Scalia , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join all except Part IV-A-2 of Justice Kennedy ' s opinion. In my view, all §1983
actions must be treated alike insofar as the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial is
concerned; that right exists when monetary damages are sought; and the issues
submitted to the jury in the present case were properly sent there.
I
Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, creates a duty to refrain from interference with
the federal rights of others, and provides money damages and injunctive relief for
violation of that duty. Since the statute itself confers no right to jury trial, such a right is to
be found, if at all, in the application to §1983 of the Seventh Amendment, which
guarantees a jury "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars." In determining whether a particular cause of action is a "[s]ui[t] at

59
common law" within the meaning of this provision, we must examine whether it was tried
at law in 1791 or is analogous to such a cause, see, e.g. , Granfinanciera, S. A. v.
Nordberg , 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989), and whether it seeks relief that is legal or equitable
in nature, see, e.g., Tull v. United States , 481 U. S. 412, 421 (1987).
The fundamental difference between my view of this case and Justice Souter ' s is
that I believe §1983 establishes a unique, or at least distinctive, cause of action, in that
the legal duty which is the basis for relief is ultimately defined not by the claim-creating
statute itself, but by an extrinsic body of law to which the statute refers, namely "federal
rights elsewhere conferred." Baker v. McCollan , 443 U. S. 137, 144 , n. 3 (1979). In this
respect §1983 is, so to speak, a prism through which many different lights may pass.
Unlike Justice Souter , I believe that, in analyzing this cause of action for Seventh
Amendment purposes, the proper focus is on the prism itself, not on the particular ray
that happens to be passing through in the present case.
The Seventh Amendment inquiry looks first to the " nature of the statutory action. "
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. , 523 U. S. 340, 348 (1998). The only
"statutory action" here is a §1983 suit. The question before us, therefore, is not what
common-law action is most analogous to some generic suit seeking compensation for a
Fifth Amendment taking, but what common-law action is most analogous to a §1983
claim . The fact that the breach of duty which underlies the particular §1983 claim at
issue here--a Fifth Amendment takings violation--may give rise to another cause of
action besides a §1983 claim, namely a so-called inverse condemnation suit, which is
(according to Part IV-A-2 of Justice Kennedy ' s opinion) or is not (according to Justice
Souter' s opinion) entitled to be tried before a jury, seems to me irrelevant. The central
question remains whether a §1983 suit is entitled to a jury. The fortuitous existence of an
inverse-condemnation cause of action is surely not essential to the existence of the
§1983 claim. Indeed, for almost all §1983 claims arising out of constitutional violations,
no alternative private cause of action does exist--which makes it practically useful, in
addition to being theoretically sound, to focus on the prism instead of the refracted light.
This is exactly the approach we took in Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U. S. 261 (1985)--an
opinion whose analysis is so precisely in point that it gives this case a distinct quality of
déjà vu . Wilson required us to analogize §1983 actions to common-law suits for a
different purpose: not to determine applicability of the jury-trial right, but to identify the
relevant statute of limitations. Since no federal limitations period was provided, the Court
had to apply 42 U. S. C. §1988(a), which stated that, in the event a federal civil rights
statute is "deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish
offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and
statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause
is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States, shall be extended to and govern the [federal] courts in the trial and
disposition of the cause ... ." In applying this provision, the Court identified as one of the
steps necessary for its analysis resolution of precisely the question I have been
discussing here: "[W]e must . . . decide whether all §1983 claims should be
characterized in the same way, or whether they should be evaluated differently
depending upon the varying factual circumstances and legal theories presented in each
individual case." 471 U. S., at 268 . The Court concluded (as I do here) that all §1983
claims should be characterized in the same way. It said (as I have) that §1983 was "a
uniquely federal remedy," and that it is "the purest coincidence . . . when state statutes
or the common law provide for equivalent remedies; any analogies to those causes of
action are bound to be imperfect." Id ., at 271-272 (citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks

60
omitted). And the Court was affected (as I am here) by the practical difficulties of the
other course, which it described as follows:
"Almost every §1983 claim can be favorably analogized to more than one of the ancient
common-law forms of action, each of which may be governed by a different statute of
limitations. ...
"A catalog of ... constitutional claims that have been alleged under §1983 would
encompass numerous and diverse topics and subtopics: discrimination in public
employment on the basis of race or the exercise of First Amendment rights, discharge or
demotion without procedural due process, mistreatment of schoolchildren, deliberate
indifference to the medical needs of prison inmates, the seizure of chattels without
advance notice or sufficient opportunity to be heard--to identify only a few." Id ., at 272-
273 (footnotes omitted).
For these reasons the Court concluded that all §1983 actions should be characterized as
"tort action[s] for the recovery of damages for personal injuries." Id., at 276.
To be sure, §1988 is not the Seventh Amendment. It is entirely possible to analogize
§1983 to the "common law" in one fashion for purposes of that statute, and in another
fashion for purposes of the constitutional guarantee. But I cannot imagine why one
would want to do that. For both purposes it is a "unique federal remedy" whose
character is determined by the federal cause of action, and not by the innumerable
constitutional and statutory violations upon which that cause of action is dependent. And
for both purposes the search for (often nonexistent) common-law analogues to remedies
for those particular violations is a major headache. Surely, the burden should be upon
Justice Souter to explain why a different approach is appropriate in the present context. I
adhere to the approach of Wilson , reaffirmed and refined in Owens v. Okure , 488 U. S.
235 (1989), that a §1983 action is a §1983 action. 1
II
To apply this methodology to the present case: There is no doubt that the cause of
action created by §1983 is, and was always regarded as, a tort claim. Thomas Cooley' s
treatise on tort law, which was published roughly contemporaneously with the enactment
of §1983, tracked Blackstone' s view, see 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws
of England 115-119 (1768), that torts are remedies for invasions of certain rights, such
as the rights to personal security, personal liberty, and property. T. Cooley, Law of Torts
2-3 (1880). Section 1983 assuredly fits that description. Like other tort causes of action,
it is designed to provide compensation for injuries arising from the violation of legal
duties, see Carey v. Piphus , 435 U. S. 247, 254 (1978), and thereby, of course, to deter
future violations.
This Court has confirmed in countless cases that a §1983 cause of action sounds in
tort. We have stated repeatedly that §1983 "creates a species of tort liability," Imbler v.
Pachtman , 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976); see also Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U. S. 477, 483
(1994); Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura , 477 U. S. 299, 305 (1986); Smith
v. Wade , 461 U. S. 30, 34 (1983); Carey , supra , at 253; Hague v. Committee for
Industrial Organization , 307 U. S. 496, 507 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.) (describing a
claim brought under a predecessor of §1983 as seeking relief for "tortious invasions of
alleged civil rights by persons acting under color of state authority"). We have commonly
described it as creating a "constitutional tort," since violations of constitutional rights
have been the most frequently litigated claims. See Crawford-El v. Britton , 523 U. S.
574, 600-601 (1998); Jefferson v. City of Tarrant , 522 U. S. 75, 78-79 (1997); McMillian
v. Monroe County , 520 U. S. 781, 784 (1997); Richardson v. McKnight , 521 U. S. 399,
401 (1997); Johnson v. Jones , 515 U. S. 304, 307 (1995); Albright v. Oliver , 510 U. S.
266, 269 (1994); Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U. S. 226, 231 (1991); St. Louis v. Praprotnik ,
485 U. S. 112, 121 (1988); Daniels v. Williams , 474 U. S. 327, 329 (1986); Memphis

61
Community School Dist ., supra , at 307; Smith, supra , at 35; Monell v. New York City
Dept. of Social Servs. 436 U. S. 658, 691 (1978). In Wilson v. Garcia , we explicitly
identified §1983 as a personal-injury tort, stating that "[a] violation of [§1983] is an injury
to the individual rights of the person," and that "Congress unquestionably would have
considered the remedies established in the Civil Rights Act [of 1871] to be more
analogous to tort claims for personal injury than, for example, to claims for damages to
property or breach of contract." 471 U. S., at 277 .
As described earlier, in Wilson , supra , and Okure , supra , we used §1983' s identity
as a personal-injury tort to determine the relevant statute of limitations under 42 U. S. C.
§1988(a). We have also used §1983' s character as a tort cause of action to determine
the scope of immunity, Kalina v. Fletcher , 522 U. S. 118, 124-125 (1997), the
recoverable damages, Heck , supra , at 483; Memphis Community School Dist., supra,
at 305-306, and the scope of liability, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187 (1961). In
Owen v. City of Independence , 445 U. S. 622, 657 (1980), we even asserted that the
attributes of §1983 could change to keep up with modern developments in the law of
torts: "Doctrines of tort law have changed significantly over the past century, and our
notions of governmental responsibility should properly reflect that evolution. ... [T]he
principle of equitable loss-spreading has joined fault as a factor in distributing the costs
of official misconduct."
The Seventh Amendment' s right to jury trial attaches to a statutory cause of action
that, although unknown at common law, is analogous to common-law causes that were
tried before juries. See, e.g., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. , 523 U. S.
340, 347-348 (1998). The initial Seventh Amendment question before us, therefore, is
whether a tort action seeking money damages was a "suit at common law" for which a
jury trial was provided. The answer is obviously yes. Common-law tort actions were
brought under the writs of trespass and trespass on the case. See generally S. F. C.
Milsom, Historical Foundations of the Common Law 283-313 (2d ed. 1981). Trespass
remedied direct, forcible tortious injuries, while the later developed trespass on the case
remedied indirect or consequential harms. See, e.g., Dix, Origins of the Action of
Trespass on the Case, 46 Yale L. J. 1142, 1163 (1937); Krauss, Tort Law and Private
Ordering, 35 St. Louis U. L. J. 623, 637, and n. 66 (1991). Claims brought pursuant to
these writs and seeking money damages were triable to juries at common law. See, e.g.,
T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law 125, 348 (4th ed. 1948); J. Baker,
An Introduction to English Legal History 59 (2d ed. 1979). It is clear from our cases that
a tort action for money damages is entitled to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
See Curtis v. Loether , 415 U. S. 189, 195 (1974) (according jury trial because "[a]
damages action under [Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968] sounds basically in tort--
the statute merely defines a new legal duty, and authorizes the courts to compensate a
plaintiff for the injury caused by the defendant' s wrongful breach"); Pernell v. Southall
Realty , 416 U. S. 363, 370 (1974) ("This Court has long assumed that . . . actions
for damages to a person or property ... are actions at
law triable to a jury"); Ross v. Bernhard , 396 U. S. 531, 533 (1970) ("The Seventh
Amendment . . . entitle[s] the parties to a jury trial in actions for damages to a person or
property . . . ").
A number of lower courts have held that a §1983 damages action--without reference
to what might have been the most analogous common-law remedy for violation of the
particular federal right at issue--must be tried to a jury. See, e.g., Caban - Wheeler v.
Elsea , 71 F. 3d 837, 844 (CA11 1996); Perez - Serrano v. DeLeon - Velez , 868 F. 2d
30, 32-33 (CA1 1989); Laskaris v. Thornburgh , 733 F. 2d 260, 264 (CA3 1984); Segarra
v. McDade , 706 F. 2d 1301, 1304 (CA4 1983); Dolence v. Flynn , 628 F. 2d 1280, 1282
(CA10 1980); Amburgey v. Cassady , 507 F. 2d 728, 730 (CA6 1974); Brisk v. Miami

62
Beach , 726 F. Supp. 1305, 1311-1312 (SD Fla. 1989); Ruth Anne M. v. Alvin
Independent School Dist. , 532 F. Supp. 460, 475 (SD Tex. 1982); Mason v. Melendez ,
525 F. Supp. 270, 282 (WD Wis. 1981); Cook v. Cox , 357 F. Supp. 120, 124-125, and
n. 4 (ED Va. 1973).
In sum, it seems to me entirely clear that a §1983 cause of action for damages is a
tort action for which jury trial would have been provided at common law. The right of jury
trial is not eliminated, of course, by virtue of the fact that, under our modern unified
system, the equitable relief of an injunction is also sought. See, e.g., Dairy Queen, Inc. v.
Wood , 369 U. S. 469, 479 (1962); Scott v. Neely , 140 U. S. 106, 109-110 (1891). Nor--
to revert to the point made in Part I of this discussion--is the tort nature of the cause of
action, and its entitlement to jury trial, altered by the fact that another cause of action
was available (an inverse condemnation suit) to obtain the same relief. Even if that were
an equitable cause of action--or, as Justice Souter asserts, a peculiar legal cause of
action to which the right to jury trial did not attach--the nature of the §1983 suit would no
more be transformed by it than, for example, a common-law fraud action would be
deprived of the right to jury trial by the fact that the defendant was a trustee who could,
instead, have been sued for an equitable accounting.
III
To say that respondents had the right to a jury trial on their §1983 claim is not to say
that they were entitled to have the jury decide every issue. The precise scope of the
jury' s function is the second Seventh Amendment issue before us here--and there again,
as we stated in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 517 U. S. 370, 377 (1996),
history is our guide. I agree with the Court' s methodology, see ante , at 27, 29, which, in
the absence of a precise historical analogue, recognizes the historical preference for
juries to make primarily factual determinations and for judges to resolve legal questions.
See Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman , 295 U. S. 654, 657 (1935). That fact-
law dichotomy is routinely applied by the lower courts in deciding §1983 cases. For
instance, in cases alleging retaliatory discharge of a public employee in violation of the
First Amendment, judges determine whether the speech that motivated the termination
was constitutionally protected speech, while juries find whether the discharge was
caused by that speech. See, e.g., Horstkoetter v. Department of Public Safety , 159
F. 3d 1265, 1271 (CA10 1998). And in cases asserting municipal liability for harm
caused by unconstitutional policies, judges determine whether the alleged policies were
unconstitutional, while juries find whether the policies in fact existed and whether they
harmed the plaintiff. See, e.g., Myers v. County of Orange , 157 F. 3d 66, 74-76 (CA2
1998), cert. denied, 525 U. S. ___ (1999).
In the present case, the question of liability for a Takings Clause violation was given
to the jury to determine by answering two questions: (1) whether respondents were
deprived of "all economically viable use" of their property, and (2) whether petitioner' s
1986 rejection of respondents'building plans "substantially advance[d] [a] legitimate
public interes[t]." I concur in the Court' s assessment that the "economically viable use"
issue presents primarily a question of fact appropriate for consideration by a jury. Ante ,
at 29-30. The second question--whether the taking "substantially advance[s] [a]
legitimate public interes[t]" 2 --seems to me to break down (insofar as is relevant to the
instructions here) into two subquestions: (1) Whether the government' s asserted basis
for its challenged action represents a legitimate state interest. That was a question of
law for the court. (2) Whether that legitimate state interest is substantially furthered by
the challenged government action. I agree with the Court that at least in the highly
particularized context of the present case, involving the denial of a single application for
stated reasons, that was a question of fact for the jury. As the matter was put to the jury
in the present case, the first subquestion was properly removed from the jury' s

63
cognizance: the court instructed that "legitimate public interest[s] can include protecting
the environment, preserving open space agriculture, protecting the health and safety of
its citizens, and regulating the quality of the community by looking at development." App.
304. These included the only public interests asserted in the case. The second
subquestion, on the other hand, was properly left to the jury: "[O]ne of your jobs as jurors
is to decide if the city'
s decision here substantially advanced any such legitimate public
purpose." Ibid.; see ante , at 30.
***
I conclude that the Seventh Amendment provides respondents with a right to a jury
trial on their §1983 claim, and that the trial court properly submitted the particular issues
raised by that §1983 claim to the jury. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment and
join all but Part IV-A-2 of Justice Kennedy ' s opinion.

CITY OF MONTEREY, PETITIONER v. DEL MONTE

DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD., and MONTEREY-
DEL MONTE DUNES CORPORATION
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the ninth circuit
[May 24, 1999]

Justice Souter , with whom Justice O'Connor, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer
join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
A federal court commits error by submitting an issue to a jury over objection, unless
the party seeking the jury determination has a right to a jury trial on the issue. Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 39(a)(2). In this action under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, the city
unsuccessfully objected to submitting respondents'regulatory taking (or inverse
condemnation) claim to a jury. Respondents had no right to a jury trial either by statute
or under the Constitution; the District Court thus erred in submitting their claim to a jury.
In holding to the contrary, that such a right does exist under the Seventh Amendment,
the Court misconceives a taking claim under §1983 and draws a false analogy between
such a claim and a tort action. I respectfully dissent from the erroneous Parts III and IV
of the Court' s opinion.
I
I see eye to eye with the Court on some of the preliminary issues. I agree in rejecting
extension of "rough proportionality" as a standard for reviewing land-use regulations
generally and so join Parts I and II of the majority opinion. I also join the Court in thinking
the statutory language "an action at law" insufficient to provide a jury right under 42
U. S. C. §1983, ante , at 16, with the consequence that Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370 (1996), must provide the appropriate questions in
passing on the issue of a constitutional guarantee of jury trial: " `whether we are dealing
with a cause of action that either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least
analogous to one that was'"; and, if so, "whether the particular trial decision must fall to
the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in
1791.'" Ante , at 16-17 (quoting Markman , supra , at 376). The Court soundly concedes
that at the adoption of the Seventh Amendment there was no action like the modern
inverse condemnation suit for obtaining just compensation when the government took
property without invoking formal condemnation procedures. Like the Court, I am
accordingly remitted to a search for any analogy that may exist and a consideration of
any implication going to the substance of the jury right that the results of that enquiry
may raise. But this common launching ground is where our agreement ends.

64
II
The city's proposed analogy of inverse condemnation proceedings to direct ones is
intuitively sensible, given their common Fifth Amendment constitutional source and link
to the sovereign' s power of eminent domain. Accord, e.g ., New Port Largo, Inc. v.
Monroe County , 95 F. 3d 1084, 1092 (CA11 1996) ("We have discovered no indication
that the rule in regulatory takings cases differs from the general eminent domain
framework"); Northglenn v. Grynberg , 846 P. 2d 175, 178 (Colo. 1993) ("Because an
inverse condemnation action is based on the `takings'clause of our constitution, it is to
be tried as if it were an eminent domain proceeding"). See Grant, A Revolutionary View
of the Seventh Amendment and the Just Compensation Clause, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 144,
191-205 (1996).
The intuition is borne out by closer analysis of the respective proceedings. The
ultimate issue is identical in both direct and inverse condemnation actions: a
determination of "the fair market value of the property [taken] on the date it is
appropriated," as the measure of compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. Kirby
Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1, 10 (1984). It follows, as Justice
Brandeis said in Hurley v. Kincaid , 285 U. S. 95 (1932), that "[t]he compensation which
[a property owner] may obtain in [an inverse condemnation] proceeding will be the same
as that which he might have been awarded had the [government] instituted . . .
condemnation proceedings," id., at 104. This, indeed, has been our settled
understanding, in cases before Hurley and after Kirby Forest Industries , which have
emphasized the common underlying nature of direct and inverse condemnation cases;
the commencement of inverse condemnation actions by property owners, and direct
condemnation proceedings by the government, does not go to the substance of either.
As we said in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los
Angeles, 482 U. S. 304 (1987):
" `The fact that condemnation proceedings were not instituted and that the right was
asserted in suits by the owners d[oes] not change the essential nature of the claim. The
form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment.'" Id., at
315 (quoting Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933)).
Accord, Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 407 (1879) ("The point in issue [in the
inverse condemnation proceeding] was the compensation to be made to the owner of
the land; in other words, the value of the property taken. . . . The case would have been
in no essential particular different had the State authorized the company by statute to
appropriate the particular property in question, and the owners to bring suit against the
company in the courts of law for its value"). It is presumably for this reason that this
Court has described inverse condemnation actions as it might speak of eminent domain
proceedings brought by property owners instead of the government. See Agins v. City of
Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 258 , n. 2 (1980) ("Inverse condemnation is `a shorthand
description of the manner in which a landowner recovers just compensation for a taking
of his property when condemnation proceedings have not been instituted'") (quoting
United States v. Clarke, 445 U. S. 253, 257 (1980)). See also Armstrong v. United
States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960); Grant, supra , at 192-193 ("The difference between
condemnation and inverse condemnation inheres precisely in the `character'of the
former as United States v. Landowner and the latter as Landowner v. United States ").
Thus, the analogy between direct and inverse condemnation is apparent whether we
focus on the underlying Fifth Amendment right or the common remedy of just
compensation.
The strength of the analogy is fatal to respondents'claim to a jury trial as a matter of
right. Reaffirming what was already a well-established principle, the Court explained
over a century ago that "the estimate of the just compensation for property taken for the

65
public use, under the right of eminent domain, is not required to be made by a jury,"
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593 (1897) (citing, inter alia , Custiss v. Georgetown &
Alexandria Turnpike Co., 6 Cranch 233 (1810); United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513,
519 (1883); and Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 300 , 301 (1893)), 1 and
we have since then thought it "long . . . settled that there is no constitutional right to a
jury in eminent domain proceedings." United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S. 14, 18
(1970). 2 See 12 C. Wright, A. Miller, & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure
§3051, p. 224 (1997) ("It is absolutely settled that there is no constitutional right to a trial
by jury in compensation cases").
The reason that direct condemnation proceedings carry no jury right is not that they
fail to qualify as "Suits at common-law" within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment' s
guarantee, for we may assume that they are indeed common law proceedings, 3 see
Kohl v. United States , 91 U. S. 367, 376 (1876) ("The right of eminent domain always
was a right at common law"); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360
U. S. 25, 28 (1959) ("[A]n eminent domain proceeding is deemed for certain purposes of
legal classification a `suit at common law'"). The reason there is no right to jury trial,
rather, is that the Seventh Amendment "preserve[s]" the common law right where it
existed at the time of the framing, but does not create a right where none existed then.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 7 ("In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved"). See also 5 J. Moore, J. Lucas, & J. Wicker, Moore' s Federal Practice ¶
;38.32[1], p. 38-268 (2d ed. 1996) ("[T]he Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a
jury trial in all common law actions in the federal courts; [instead] it preserves the right of
jury trial as at common law"). There is no jury right, then, because condemnation
proceedings carried "no uniform and established right to a common law jury trial in
England or the colonies at the time . . . the Seventh Amendment was adopted." Ibid.
See, e.g ., Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430
U. S. 442, 458 (1977) ("Condemnation was a suit at common law but constitutionally
could be tried without a jury"). The statement in Reynolds indeed expressly rested on
these considerations, as shown in the Court' s quotation of Professor Moore' s statement
that "[t]he practice in England and in the colonies prior to the adoption in 1791 of the
Seventh Amendment, the position taken by Congress contemporaneously with, and
subsequent to, the adoption of the Amendment, and the position taken by the Supreme
Court and nearly all of the lower federal courts lead to the conclusion that there is no
constitutional right to jury trial in the federal courts in an action for the condemnation of
property under the power of eminent domain." Reynolds , supra , at 18 (quoting 5 J.
Moore, Federal Practice ¶ ;38.32[1], p. 239 (2d ed. 1969) (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The Court in Reynolds was on solid footing. In England, while the general practice of
Parliament was to provide for the payment of compensation, parliamentary supremacy
enabled it to take private property for public use without compensation. See, e.g .,
Randolph, The Eminent Domain, 3 L. Q. Rev. 314, 323 (1887) ("That there is no eminent
domain sub nomine in England is because the power is included, and the right to
compensation lost, in the absolutism of Parliament. The only technical term
approximating eminent domain is `compulsory powers'as used in statutes granting to
companies and associations the right to take private property for their use"). See also
McNulty, The Power of "Compulsory Purchase" Under the Law of England, 21 Yale L. J.
639, 644-646 (1912). Thus, when Parliament made provision for compensation, it was
free to prescribe whatever procedure it saw fit, and while the agency of a common-law
jury was sometimes chosen, very frequently other methods were adopted. See Blair,
Federal Condemnation Proceedings and the Seventh Amendment, 41 Harv. L. Rev. 29,
32-36 (1927); id ., at 36 ("[A]n ample basis exists in the parliamentary precedents for the

66
conclusion that the common law sanctioned such diverse methods of assessment that
no one method can be said to have been made imperative by the Seventh
Amendment"). See also 1A J. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain §4.105[1], p. 4-
115, and, §4.107, pp. 4-136 to 4-137 (rev. 3d ed. 1998) ("It had become the practice in
almost all of the original thirteen states at the time when their constitutions were
adopted, to refer the question of damages from the construction of [high]ways ... to a
commission of viewers or appraisers, generally three or five in number"); id ., at 4-137
("[I]t has been repeatedly held that when land is taken by authority of the United States,
the damages may be ascertained by any impartial tribunal").
In sum, at the time of the framing the notion of regulatory taking or inverse
condemnation was yet to be derived, the closest analogue to the then-unborn claim was
that of direct condemnation, and the right to compensation for such direct takings carried
with it no right to a jury trial, just as the jury right is foreign to it in the modern era. On
accepted Seventh Amendment analysis, then, there is no reason to find a jury right
either by direct analogy or for the sake of preserving the substance of any jury practice
known to the law at the crucial time. Indeed, the analogy with direct condemnation
actions is so strong that there is every reason to conclude that inverse condemnation
should implicate no jury right.
III
The plurality avoids this obvious conclusion in two alternative ways. One way is to
disparage the comparison of inverse to direct taking, on the grounds that litigation of the
former involves proof of liability that the latter does not and is generally more onerous to
the landowner. The disparagement is joined with adoption of a different analogy,
between inverse condemnation proceedings and actions for tortious interference with
property interests, the latter of which do implicate a right to jury trial. The plurality' s
stated grounds for avoiding the direct condemnation analogy, however, simply break
down, and so does the purported comparison to the tort actions. The other way the
plurality avoids our conclusion is by endorsing the course followed by Justice Scalia in
his separate opinion, by selecting an analogy not to tort actions as such, but to tort-like
§1983 actions. This alternative, however, is ultimately found wanting, for it prefers a
statutory analogy to a constitutional one.
A
1
The plurality' s argument that no jury is required in a direct condemnation proceeding
because the government' s liability is conceded, leaving only the issue of damages to be
assessed, rests on a premise that is only partially true. The part that is true, of course, is
that the overwhelming number of direct condemnation cases join issue solely on the
amount of damages, that is, on the just compensation due the landowner. But that is not
true always. Now and then a landowner will fight back by denying the government' s right
to condemn, claiming that the object of the taking was not a public purpose or was
otherwise unauthorized by statute . See, e.g ., Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467
U. S. 229, 240 (1984) ("There is . . . a role for courts to play in reviewing a legislature' s
judgment of what constitutes a public use, even . . . [if] it is an `extremely narrow'one"
(citation omitted)); Shoemaker, 147 U. S., at 298 . See also 2A Sackman , supra, at 7-81
to 7-82, and nn. 89-90 (listing state cases where condemnation clauses and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been relied upon by property
owners to contest attempts to acquire their property for private purposes); 2 J. Lewis,
Law of Eminent Domain §417, p. 923, and n. 51 (2d ed. 1900). What is more, when such
a direct condemnation does have more than compensation at stake, the defense of no
public purpose or authority closely resembles, if indeed it does not duplicate, one of the
grounds of liability for inverse condemnation noted in Agins , 447 U. S., at 260 -261, and

67
raised in this case: the failure of the regulation to contribute substantially to the
realization of a legitimate governmental purpose. 4 Indeed, the distinction between direct
and inverse condemnation becomes murkier still when one considers that, even though
most inverse condemnation plaintiffs accept the lawfulness of the taking and just want
money, see infra , at 18, some such plaintiffs ask for an injunction against the
government' s action, in which event they seek the same ultimate relief as the direct
condemnee who defends against the taking as unauthorized. If the direct condemnee
has no right to a jury, see 2A Sackman , supra, §7.03[11][a], at 7-90 ("The question of
whether a legislative determination of a public use is really public has been declared by
the courts ultimately to be a judicial one"), the inverse condemnee should fare no
differently.
This recognition may underlie the fact that the plurality' s absence-of-liability-issue
reasoning for distinguishing direct and inverse condemnation fails to resonate through
the cases holding that direct actions carry no jury right or commenting on the absence of
juries in such cases. While the plurality cites an opinion of Justice Baldwin, sitting on
Circuit, for its position, ante , at 21-22 (citing Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy R. Co. , 3
F. Cas. 821, 829 (No. 1,617) (CC NJ 1830)), this citation leaves the reader with a rather
skewed perspective on the diversity of rationales underlying early state cases in which
the right of a direct condemnee to a jury trial was considered and denied. Several courts
rested on the fact that proceedings to secure compensation were in the nature of suits
against the sovereign, and thus the legislature could qualify and condition the right to
bring such suits, at least to the extent of providing that they be conducted without a jury.
See, e.g ., Ligat v. Commonwealth , 19 Pa. 456, 460 (1852) ("A sovereign state is not
liable to an action at law, against her consent; and the right of trial by jury has, therefore,
no existence in such a case"); Pennsylvania R. Co. v. First German Lutheran
Congregation of Pittsburgh , 53 Pa. 445, 449 (1866) ("In taking private property for its
road [the railroad corporation] exercises a part of the sovereign power of the state . . .
[and] the right of trial by jury has never been held to belong to the citizen himself in
proceedings by the state under her powers of eminent domain"). See also McElrath v.
United States , 102 U. S. 426, 440 (1880). Just as significantly, the plurality' s new
rationale is absent from any of our precedents, including those underlying the Reynolds
decision. 5
Finally, the absence of the plurality' s rationale from our prior discussions of the matter
most probably reflects the fact that the want of a liability issue in most condemnation
cases says nothing to explain why no jury ought to be provided on the question of
damages that always is before the courts. The dollars-and-cents issue is about as
"factual" as one can be (to invoke a criterion of jury suitability emphasized by the Court
in another connection, ante , at 29-30), and no dispute about liability provokes more
contention than the price for allowing the government to put a landowner out of house
and home. If an emphasis on factual issues vigorously contested were a sufficient
criterion for identifying something essential to the preservation of the Seventh
Amendment jury right, there ought to be a jury right in direct condemnation cases as well
as the inverse ones favored by the plurality.
The plurality' s second reason for doubting the comparability of direct and inverse
condemnation is that the landowner has a heavier burden to shoulder in the latter case,
beginning with a need to initiate legal action, see United States v. Clarke, 445 U. S., at
257 . Once again, however, it is apparent that the two varieties of condemnation are not
always so distinguishable. The landowner who defends in a direct condemnation action
by denying the government' s right to take is in no significantly different position from the
inverse condemnee who claims the government must pay or be enjoined because its
regulation fails to contribute substantially to its allegedly public object. See, e.g ., 2A

68
Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain §7.03[12], at
7-105 to 7-106 (citing cases where "the challenger has the burden of proof to show that
the taking is not for a public purpose"). And once again one may ask why, even if the
inverse condemnee' s burden always were the heavier, that should make any difference.
Some plaintiffs'cases are easy and some are difficult, but the difficult ones are no
different in front of a jury (except on the assumption that juries are more apt to give
David the advantage against Goliath, which I do not believe is the plurality' s point).
Neither the Fifth nor the Seventh Amendment has ever been thought to shift and spring
with ease of proof. Cf. United States v. 101.88 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in
St. Mary's Parish, La. , 616 F. 2d 762, 772 (CA5 1980) ("The 5th Amendment, while it
guarantees that compensation be just, does not guarantee that it be meted out in a way
more convenient to the landowner than to the sovereign").
2
Just as the plurality' s efforts to separate direct from inverse condemnation actions
thus break down, so does its proposal to analogize inverse condemnation to property
damage torts. Whereas the plurality posits an early practice of litigating inverse
condemnation as a common-law tort, there was in fact a variety of treatments, some of
them consistent with the plurality' s argument, some of them not. None of those
treatments turned on the plurality' s analysis that a State's withholding of some recovery
process is essential to the cause of action. In the end, the plurality' s citations simply do
not point to any early practice both consistently followed and consistent with the
concepts underlying today' s inverse condemnation law.
a
The plurality introduces its claimed analogue of tort actions for property damage by
emphasizing what it sees as a real difference between the action of the government in
direct condemnations, and those inverse condemnations, at least, that qualify for
litigation under §1983. Whereas in eminent domain proceedings the government admits
its liability for the value of the taking, in the inverse condemnation cases litigated under
§1983, it refuses to do so inasmuch as it denies the landowner any state process (or
effective process) for litigating his claim. See Williamson County Regional Planning
Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, 194-195 (1985). Thus the
plurality explains that
"[a]lthough the government acts lawfully when, pursuant to proper authorization, it takes
property and provides just compensation, the government' s action is lawful solely
because it assumes a duty, imposed by the Constitution, to provide just compensation.
See First English , 482 U. S., at 315 (citing Jacobs , 290 U. S., at 16 ). When the
government repudiates this duty, either by denying just compensation in fact or by
refusing to provide procedures through which compensation may be sought, it violates
the Constitution. In those circumstances the government' s actions are not only
unconstitutional but unlawful and tortious as well." Ante , at 26.
According to the plurality, it is the taking of property without providing compensation or a
mechanism to obtain it that is tortious and subject to litigation under §1983. See ante , at
23, 26. By this reasoning, the plurality seeks to distinguish such a §1983 action from a
direct condemnation action and possibly from "an ordinary inverse condemnation suit,"
as well, ante , at 30, by which the plurality presumably means a suit under a state law
providing a mechanism for redress of regulatory taking claims.
The plurality claims to have authority for this view in some early state and federal
cases seeing regulatory interference with land use as akin to nuisance, trespass, or
trespass on the case, ante , at 24-25, and I agree that two of the plurality' s cited cases, 6
decided under state law, are authority for the tort treatment the plurality claims to be the
appropriate analogy. See Gardner v. Village of Newburgh , 2 Johns. 162 (N. Y. 1816)

69
(Kent, Ch.); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. , 13 Wall. 166 (1872). One other is arguably
such authority; Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U. S. 546 (1914), is
somewhat ambiguous, holding that the law of nuisance would provide compensation for
interference with enjoyment of land when the State chose not to take the interest by
direct condemnation; the measure of damages (not explained) may well have been what
the Fifth Amendment would provide for a temporary partial taking.
Beyond these cases, however, any prospect of a uniform tort treatment disappears.
One of the plurality' s cited cases, Bradshaw v. Rodgers , 20 Johns. 103 (N. Y. 1822),
was reversed by Rogers v. Bradshaw , 20 Johns. 735 (N. Y. 1823). As the concept of
public liability was explained in the latter opinion, it turned not on an issue of garden
variety tort law, but on whether there was a total absence or not of legal authority for a
defending public officer' s action with respect to the land. See id., at 743 ("I should doubt
exceedingly, whether the general principle, that private property is not to be taken for
public uses without just compensation, is to be carried so far as to make a public officer,
who enters upon private property by virtue of legislative authority, specially given for a
public purpose, a trespasser , if he enters before the property has been paid for. I do not
know, nor do I find, that the precedents will justify any court of justice in carrying the
general principle to such an extent"). See also Brauneis, The First Constitutional Tort:
The Remedial Revolution in Nineteenth-Century State Just Compensation Law, 52
Vand. L. Rev. 57, 64-65 (1999) (demonstrating that pre-Civil War owner-initiated just
compensation plaintiffs could recover retrospective damages under common law action
of trespass or trespass on the case only after defendant was "stripped of his [legislative]
justification"). Cf. Leader v. Moxon , 2 Black. W. 924, 927, 96 Eng. Rep. 546, 547 (C. P.
1773) (commissioners acted outside their statutory authority and were thus liable in tort);
Boulton v. Crowther , 2 Barn. & Cress. 701, 707, 107 Eng. Rep. 544, 547 (K. B. 1824).
Under these cases, there would be no recovery unless the public officer interfering with
the property right was acting wholly without authority. But as absence of legal
authorization becomes crucial to recovery, the analogy to tort liability fades. What is
even more damaging to the attempted tort analogy, whether it rests on simple tort cases
like Gardner or legal authorization cases like Bradshaw , is that this very assumption that
liability flows from wrongful or unauthorized conduct is at odds with the modern view of
acts effecting inverse condemnation as being entirely lawful. 7 See First English
Evangelical Lutheran , 482 U. S., at 314 -315 (citing Williamson County Regional
Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, 194 (1985)); Hodel
v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 297 , n. 40 (1981);
Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S., at 104 ; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S.
312, 336 (1893); United States v. Jones, 109 U. S., at 518 ). Unlike damages to redress
a wrong as understood in Gardner or Bradshaw (or even in a modern tort action), a
damages award in an inverse condemnation action orders payment of the "just
compensation" required by the Constitution for payment of an obligation lawfully
incurred.
To the plurality' s collection of tort and authorization cases, one must add those that
are so far from reflecting any early understanding of inverse condemnation as
conventionally tortious that they treat inverse condemnation as grounding an action in
quasi contract, see, e.g ., Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S., at 16 . Although the quasi-
contractual action seems to be the closest cousin to the plurality' s conception of §1983
as applied here, the resemblance is limited by that strain of quasi contract 8 theory
holding that the defendant must pay for what he has received to avoid unjust
enrichment, see E. Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts §2.20, p. 101 (3d ed. 1994),
whereas the theory of just compensation for a taking is that the owner must be paid for
what he has lost, United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 373-374 (1943).

70
 After a canvass of these materials, the only conclusion that seems reasonable to me
is that prior to the emergence of the modern inverse condemnation action a spectrum of
legal theories was employed to respond to the problem of inverse taking. No one of
these experiments can be accepted as a definitive analogue of the contemporary action,
and each of them is inconsistent in some way with the contemporary view that inverse
condemnation enforces payment for the owner' s value in property lawfully taken.
b
If the chosen tort analogy were not already too weak to sustain the plurality' s position,
it would be rendered so by the plurality' s inability to identify any tort recovery under the
old cases for the government' s sin of omission in failing to provide a process of
compensation (which the plurality finds at the heart of the §1983 claim), as distinct from
the acts of interfering with use or enjoyment of land. The plurality simply fails to find any
analogue on this element, and its failure is in fact matched by the failure of its §1983
theory to fit the reality of §1983 litigation for inverse takings. When an inverse
condemnation claim is brought under §1983, the "provision" of law that is thereby
enforced, Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 106 (1989), is the
Fifth Amendment Just Compensation Clause and no other. 9 There is no separate
cause of action for withholding process, and respondents in the instant case do not claim
otherwise; they simply seek just compensation for their land, subject to the usual rules
governing §1983 liability and damages awards. 10
c
Finally, it must be said that even if the tort analogue were not a failure, it would prove
too much. For if the comparison to inverse condemnation were sound, it would be
equally sound as to direct condemnation and so require recognition of the very jury right
that we have previously denied. This perception was apparent to the Court of Appeals in
this case, when it wrote (erroneously) that "both eminent domain and inverse
condemnation actions resemble common-law actions for trover to recover damages for
conversion of personal property, and detinue and replevin." 95 F. 3d 1422, 1427 (CA9
1996). The Court of Appeals, indeed, cited Beatty v. United States , 203 F. 620 (CA4
1913), as does the plurality, ante , at 26, in which the Fourth Circuit held that the
landowner in a direct condemnation proceeding had a Seventh Amendment right to a
jury determination of just compensation:
"The taking of property by condemnation under the power of eminent domain is
compulsory. The party is deprived of his property against his will. . . . The analogy to a
suit at common law for trespass is close and complete, and it is for that reason
presumably the Supreme Court of the United States, acting on the definition of a suit at
common law previously indicated by it, has decided that a proceeding by the United
States to condemn lands for public purposes is a suit at common law. If so it be, then it
would follow that the defendant, if he claims it, is entitled at some stage in the
proceeding to have his damages assessed by a jury." 203 F., at 626.
The plurality' s analogy, if accepted, simply cannot be confined to inverse condemnation
actions alone, and if it is not so confined it runs squarely against the settled law in the
field of direct condemnation.
B
In addition to the plurality's direct tort analogy, it pursues a different analytical
approach in adopting Justice Scalia ' s analogy to §1983 actions seeking legal relief, see
ante, at 17. Justice Scalia begins with a more sweeping claim: "The central question
remains whether a §1983 suit is entitled to a jury." Ante , at 2 (opinion concurring in part
and concurring in judgment). The analogy to the broad class of §1983 actions is put
forward as serving the undoubted virtues of simplicity and uniformity in treating various
actions that may be brought under a single remedial statute. It is only when "apply[ing]

71
this methodology to the present case," ante , at 5, that Justice Scalia is careful not to
claim too much: he no longer argues for drawing an analogy between §1983 inverse
condemnation actions and all §1983 actions, but only those §1983 actions brought to
recover money damages, see ante , at 7. This subclass of §1983 actions, he quite
correctly notes, has been treated as tortlike in character and thus as much entitled to
jury trial as tort actions have been at common law. For two independent reasons,
however, I think the analogy with §1983 actions, either as a class or as a subclass of
damages actions, is inadequate.
1
First, the analogy to all §1983 actions does not serve any unified field theory of jury
rights under §1983. While the statute is indeed a prism through which rights originating
elsewhere may pass on their way to a federal jury trial, trial by jury is not a uniform
feature of §1983 actions. The statute provides not only for actions at law with damages
remedies where appropriate, but for "suit[s] in equity, or other proper proceeding[s] for
redress." 42 U. S. C. §1983. Accordingly, rights passing through the §1983 prism may in
proper cases be vindicated by injuction, see, e.g ., Mitchum v. Foster , 407 U. S. 225,
242-243 (1972) (§1983 falls within "expressly authorized" exception of Anti-Injunction
Act and thus authorizes injunctions staying state-court proceedings), orders of
restitution, see, e.g ., Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh , 538 F. 2d 991, 994-995 (CA3
1976) (restitution of university fees collected pursuant to rule held to violate Equal
Protection Clause), and by declaratory judgments, see, e.g ., Steffel v. Thompson , 415
U. S. 452, 454 , 475 (1974) (declaratory relief under §1983 available in suit claiming
state criminal statute constitutionally invalid), none of which implicate, or always
implicate, a right to jury trial. Comparing inverse condemnation actions to the class of
§1983 actions that are treated like torts does not, therefore, preserve a uniformity in jury
practice under §1983 that would otherwise be lost. Justice Scalia ' s metaphor is, indeed,
an apt one: §1983 is a prism, not a procrustean bed.
Nor, as I have already mentioned, see supra , at 17-19, is there a sound basis for
treating inverse condemnation as providing damages for a tort. A State' s untoward
refusal to provide an adequate remedy to obtain compensation, the sine qua non of an
inverse condemnation remedy under §1983, is not itself the independent subject of an
award of damages (and respondents do not claim otherwise); the remedy is not
damages for tortious behavior, but just compensation for the value of the property taken.
2
Even if an argument for §1983 simplicity and uniformity were sustainable, however, it
would necessarily be weaker than the analogy with direct condemnation actions. That
analogy rests on two elements that are present in each of the two varieties of
condemnation actions: a Fifth Amendment constitutional right and a remedy specifically
mandated by that same amendment. Because constitutional values are superior to
statutory values, uniformity as between different applications of a given constitutional
guarantee is more important than uniformity as between different applications of a given
statute. If one accepts that proposition as I do, a close analogy between direct and
inverse condemnation proceedings is necessarily stronger than even a comparably
close resemblance between two statutory actions.
IV
Were the results of the analysis to this point uncertain, one final anomaly of the
Court' s position would point up its error. The inconsistency of recognizing a jury trial right
in inverse condemnation, notwithstanding its absence in condemnation actions, appears
the more pronounced on recalling that under Agins one theory of recovery in inverse
condemnation cases is that the taking makes no substantial contribution to a legitimate
governmental purpose. 11 This issue includes not only a legal component that may be

72
difficult to resolve, but one so closely related to similar issues in substantive due process
property claims, that this Court cited a substantive due process case when recognizing
the theory under the rubric of inverse condemnation. See Agins , 447 U. S., at 260
(citing Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, 188 (1928)). 12 Substantive due process
claims are, of course, routinely reserved without question for the court. See, e.g .,
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 853-855 (1998); Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 722-723 (1997); FM Properties Operating Co. v. Austin , 93
F. 3d 167, 172, n. 6 (CA5 1996) (rational relationship to legitimate government interest
for purposes of substantive due process a question of law for the court); Sameric Corp.
v. Philadelphia , 142 F. 3d 582, 590-591 (CA3 1998) (same as to city historical
commission action). 13 Thus, it would be far removed from usual practice to charge a
jury with the duty to assess the constitutional legitimacy of the government' s objective or
the constitutional adequacy of its relationship to the government' s chosen means.
The usual practice makes perfect sense. While juries are not customarily called upon
to assume the subtleties of deferential review, courts apply this sort of limited scrutiny in
all sorts of contexts and are routinely accorded institutional competence to do it. See, e.g
., Pearson v. Grand Blanc , 961 F. 2d 1211, 1222 (CA6 1992) (deferential substantive
due process review a matter of law for the court). Scrutinizing the legal basis for
governmental action is "one of those things that judges often do and are likely to do
better than juries unburdened by training in exegesis." Markman , 517 U. S., at 388 . It
therefore should bring no surprise to find that in the taking cases a question whether
regulatory action substantially advances a legitimate public aim has more often than not
been treated by the federal courts as a legal issue. See, e.g ., New Port Largo, Inc. v.
Monroe County , 95 F. 3d 1084, 1092 (CA11 1996) (whether regulatory taking occurred
is an issue for the court); Mid Gulf, Inc. v. Bishop , 792 F. Supp. 1205, 1213-1214, 1215
(Kan. 1992) (whether city' s regulations unreasonable and a taking a question of law for
the court); Gissell v. Kenmare Township , 512 N. W. 2d 470, 474 (N. D. 1994) (necessity
for proposed taking a question for the court); Yegen v. Bismarck , 291 N. W. 2d 422, 424
(N. D. 1980) (taking vel non of private property for public use a question of law). But see
Gray v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways , 427 S. E. 2d 899 (S. C. App. 1992) (whether
no taking because closing of intersection was needed to prevent serious public harm is
jury issue). These practices point up the great gulf between the practical realities of
taking litigation, and the Court' s reliance on the assertion that "in suits sounding in tort
for money damages, questions of liability were decided by the jury, rather than the judge,
in most cases," ante , at 27.
Perhaps this is the reason that the Court apparently seeks to distance itself from the
ramifications of today' s determination. The Court disclaims any attempt to set a "precise
demarcation of the respective provinces of judge and jury in determining whether a
zoning decision substantially advances legitimate governmental interests." Ante , at 31.
It denies that today' s holding would extend to "a broad challenge to the constitutionality
of the city' s general land-use ordinances or policies," in which case, "the determination
whether the statutory purposes were legitimate, or whether the purposes, though
legitimate, were furthered by the law or general policy, might well fall within the province
of the judge." Ibid. (And the plurality presumably does not mean to address any Seventh
Amendment issue that someone might raise when the government has provided an
adequate remedy, for example, by recognizing a compensatory action for inverse
condemnation, see ante , at 23, 26.) But the Court' s reticence is cold comfort simply
because it rests upon distinctions that withstand analysis no better than the tort-law
analogies on which the Court' s conclusion purports to rest. The narrowness of the
Court' s intentions cannot, therefore, be accepted as an effective limit on the
consequences on its reasoning, from which, I respectfully dissent. 14

73
FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1
Justice Souter properly notes that "trial by jury is not a uniform feature of §1983
actions." Post , at 20. This does not lead, however, to his desired conclusion that all
§1983 actions can therefore not properly be analogized to tort claims. Post , at 9, 20-21.
Before the merger of law and equity, a contested right would have to be established at
law before relief could be obtained in equity. Thus, a suit in equity to enjoin an alleged
nuisance could not be brought until a tort action at law established the right to relief. See
1 J. High, Law of Injunctions 476-477 (2d ed. 1880). Since the merger of law and equity,
any type of relief, including purely equitable relief, can be sought in a tort suit--so that I
can file a tort action seeking only an injunction against a nuisance. If I should do so, the
fact that I seek only equitable relief would disentitle me to a jury, see, e.g. , Curtis v.
Loether , 415 U. S. 189, 198 (1974); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood , 369 U. S. 469, 471
(1962); Parsons v. Bedford , 3 Pet. 433, 446-447 (1830); E. Re & J. Re, Cases and
Materials on Remedies 46 (4th ed. 1996)--but that would not render the nuisance suit
any less a tort suit, so that if damages were sought a jury would be required. So also
here: Some §1983 suits do not require a jury because only equitable relief is sought. But
since they are tort suits, when damages are requested, as they are in the present case,
a jury must be provided. Thus, the relief sought is an important consideration in the
Seventh Amendment inquiry, but contrary to Justice Souter ' s belief it is a consideration
separate from the determination of the analogous common-law cause of action.

Footnote 2
As the Court explains, petitioner forfeited any objection to this standard, see ante , at
12, and I express no view as to its propriety.

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1
In Bauman , the Court upheld a statute (providing for condemnation of land for streets)
that contemplated a form of jury "differing from an ordinary jury in consisting of less than
twelve persons, and in not being required to act with unanimity," and stated that the just
compensation determination "may be entrusted by Congress to commissioners
appointed by a court or by the executive, or to an inquest consisting of more or fewer
men than an ordinary jury." 167 U. S., at 593 . The Court relied upon prior cases that
had assumed the absence of a constitutional right to a jury determination of just
compensation. See, e.g ., Shoemaker, 147 U. S., at 301 -302, 304-305 (upholding
statute providing for ascertainment of the value of condemned land by three
presidentially appointed commissioners); Jones , 109 U. S., at 519 ("The proceeding for
the ascertainment of the value of the property and consequent compensation to be
made, is merely an inquisition to establish a particular fact as a preliminary to the taking;
and it may be prosecuted before commissioners or special boards or the courts, with or
without the intervention of a jury, as the legislative power may designate"). See also Kohl
v. United States , 91 U. S. 367, 376 (1876) ("That [the right of eminent domain] was not
enforced through the agency of a jury is immaterial; for many civil as well as criminal
proceedings at common law were without a jury"); Crane v. Hahlo, 258 U. S. 142, 147
(1922) ("[T]he reference of such a question [determining the amount of compensation],
especially in eminent domain proceedings, to a commission, or board, or sheriff' s jury, or

74
other non-judicial tribunal, was so common in England and in this country prior to the
adoption of the Federal Constitution that it has been held repeatedly that it is a form of
procedure within the power of the State to provide").

Footnote 2
Similarly, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a jury
trial in state condemnation proceedings. See, e.g ., Long Island Water Supply Co. v.
Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685, 694 (1897); Crane, supra , at 147; Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U. S.
362, 369 (1930).

Footnote 3
Several commentators and courts have advanced theories that a condemnation
proceeding is not an action at law, but rather is either some sort of special proceeding,
or else an equitable proceeding. See, e.g ., H. Mills & A. Abbott, Mills on Law of Eminent
Domain §84, p. 225 (2d ed. 1888); id ., §91, at 239 ("Condemnation is not an action at
law, but an inquisition on the part of the state for the ascertainment of a particular fact,
and may be conducted without the intervention of a jury"); 1A J. Sackman, Nichols on
Eminent Domain §4.105[1], p. 4-137 (rev. 3d ed. 1998) ("Condemnation proceedings are
not suits at common law"). There is some accumulated support for the idea that
condemnation proceedings derive from the writ ad quod damnum , which was issued by
the courts of equity to the sheriff to conduct an inquest into the amount of damages
incurred by a landowner as a result of the taking. Nonetheless, since Kohl v. United
States, supra, at 376 the first case involving the Federal Government' s exercise of its
power of eminent domain, this Court has classified condemnation proceedings as suits
at common law.

Footnote 4
See, e.g ., J. Laitos, Law of Property Rights Protection §12.04[A], pp. 12-12 to 12-13
(1999) ("The police power takings standard also means that the taking prohibition
becomes more like a due process check on the police power"; describing two claims as
"an identical test").

Footnote 5
See n. 1, supra . Moreover, if presence of a liability issue were crucial, then the jury
right presumably would be lost in every tort case with liability conceded, which goes to
trial on damages alone. Such, of course, is not the practice. See, e.g ., Blazar v. Perkins
, 463 A. 2d 203, 207 (R. I. 1983) ("The fact that prior to trial, defendants admitted liability,
thereby removing one issue from the consideration of the jury, does not alter the
application of th[e] principle [that plaintiffs cannot waive a jury trial on the issue of
damage when defendants have demanded a jury trial]").

Footnote 6
Two of the cases cited by the plurality offer at most tangential support. Plaintiff' s claim in
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 249 (1833), was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the
States. In Lindsay v. Commissioners , 2 Bay 38 (S. C. 1796), the plaintiff sought a writ of
prohibition restraining city commissioners from laying out a street, not damages. While
the plurality relies on the opinion of one justice favoring the granting of the writ, the court
actually divided equally, the result being denial of the writ. Moreover, even within that
opinion, the quoted statement is the equivalent of dictum since it is not necessary to the
reasoning in favor of granting the writ.

75
Footnote 7
When an inverse condemnee seeks an injunction (as when a direct condemnee
challenges the taking, or a plaintiff claims a substantive due process violation), there is a
claim of wrong in the sense of lack of authority. But this is not so in the usual case where
damages are sought.

Footnote 8
See Williston on Contracts §1.6, pp. 27-28 (4th ed. 1990) (restitution not limited by
theory of unjust enrichment).

Footnote 9
Of course, §1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States
Constitution and federal statutes that it describes." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137,
144 , n. 3 (1979). Accord, Johnson v. University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire , 70 F. 3d 469,
481 (CA7 1995) ("Because §1983 does not create substantive rights, but rather provides
a remedy for violations of pre-existing rights, §1983 claims must specifically allege a
violation of the Constitution or `laws'of the United States").

Footnote 10
Respondents in this case sought damages for the fair market value of the property,
interim damages for a temporary taking, holding costs, interest, attorney' s fees, costs,
and other consequential damages. Complaint pp. 14-15; First Amended Complaint
pp. 16-17. The jury was instructed that in calculating damages: "[I]t' s up to you to decide
the difference in value, the fair market value as a result of the City'
s decision. Multiply it
by an interest rate you think is appropriate, for a length of time you think is appropriate.
So those are the three elements of computing the damages claimed if you determine the
plaintiff is entitled to recover." 11 Record 1426. Respondents thus sought no incremental
"damages" (beyond just compensation) for denial of state compensation procedures.
Indeed, the only "damages" available in inverse condemnation cases is the just
compensation measured by the value of the land. See supra , at 3. See, e.g. , Eide v.
Sarasota County , 908 F. 2d 716 (CA11 1990). The fact that no further element of
damages is recognized confirms rejection of the tort analogy, for it would be a peculiar
tort indeed that did not recognize its concomitant injury in damages. Cf. Miller v.
Campbell County , 854 P. 2d 71, 77 (Wyo. 1993) (rejecting reliance on tort law in holding
that emotional distress is not a proper element of damages in inverse condemnation
actions).

Footnote 11
The jury's inverse condemnation verdict did not indicate which of the theories formed
the basis of its liability finding: (1) whether the city'
s action did not substantially advance
a legitimate purpose; or (2) whether the city' s denial of the permit deprived the subject
property of all economically viable use.

Footnote 12
I offer no opinion here on whether Agins was correct in assuming that this prong of
liability was properly cognizable as flowing from the Just Compensation Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, as distinct from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.

76
Footnote 13
The substantive due process taking claim concentrates on whether the government' s
aims are "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public
health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272
U. S. 365, 395 (1926).

Footnote 14
I would therefore remand the case. There would be no need for a new trial; the judge
could treat the jury'
s verdict as advisory, so long as he recorded his own findings
consistent with the jury'
s verdict. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 52(a).

California Cases at Findlaw on regulatory takings:

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/reg_tak/regulatory_takings.html

“EXECUTIVE ORDER 12630”

(SEE ATTACHED GAO DOCUMENT)

BACKGROUND ON EO-12630

The just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment states “nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Initially, this clause applied to the
government’s exercise of its power of eminent domain. In eminent domain cases, the
government invokes its eminent domain power by filing a condemnation action in court
against a property owner to establish that the taking is for a public use or purpose, such
as the construction of a road or school, and to have the amount of just compensation
due the property owner determined by the court.7 In such cases, the government takes
title to the property, providing the owner just compensation based on the fair market
value of the property at the time of taking. In later years, Supreme Court decisions
established that regulatory takings are subject to the just compensation clause as well.
In contrast to the direct taking associated with eminent domain, regulatory takings arise
from the consequences of government regulatory actions that affect private property. In
these cases, the government does not take action to condemn the property or offer
compensation. Instead, the government effectively takes the property by denying or
limiting the owner’s planned use of the property, referred to as an inverse taking.8 An
owner claiming that a government action has effected a taking and that compensation is
owed must initiate suit against the government to obtain any compensation due.9 The
court awards just compensation to the owner upon concluding that a taking has
occurred.
In 1987, concerned with the number of pending regulatory takings lawsuits and with
court decisions seen as increasing the exposure of the federal government to liability for
such takings, the President’s Task Force on Regulatory Relief began drafting an
executive order to direct executive branch agencies to more carefully consider the
takings implications of their proposed regulations or other actions. According to a former
Assistant Attorney General, this order was needed to protect public funds by

77
7
The use of “condemnation” in this case does not mean the property is unfit for use.
Instead, it refers to the government' s action to declare the property convertible to public
use through the exercise of its power of eminent domain.
8
In general, an inverse taking has the effect of an affirmative exercise of the power of
eminent domain. An inverse taking is also referred to as inverse condemnation.
9
Takings of property effected by government actions may occur in a number of ways.
Examples of such actions include: (1) a government regulation restricting development,
(2) a government requirement that a landowner provide the public access to private
property (such as by providing public access to a private beachfront), and (3) an
agency’s denial of a mineral drilling permit.
minimizing government intrusion upon private property rights and to budget for the
payment of just compensation when such intrusions were inevitable. The President
issued this order, EO 12630, on March 15, 1988.
According to the EO, actions subject to its provisions include regulations, proposed
regulations, proposed legislation, comments on proposed legislation, or other policy
statements that, if implemented or enacted, could cause a taking of private property.
Such actions may include rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing,
permitting, or other conditions, requirements or limitations on private property use. The
EO also enumerates agency actions that are not subject to the order, including the
exercise of the power of eminent domain and law enforcement actions involving seizure,
for violations of law, of property for forfeiture, or as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Among other things, the EO requires the U.S. Attorney General to issue guidelines to
help agencies evaluate the takings implications of their proposed actions, and, as
necessary, to update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings case
law resulting from U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Attorney General issued these
guidelines on June 30, 1988, to establish a basic, uniform framework for federal
agencies to use in their internal evaluations of the takings implications of administrative,
regulatory, and legislative policies and actions.10 In addition, the guidelines discuss
agency responsibilities for implementing the EO and the process for preparing agency-
specific supplemental guidelines.
The Attorney General’s guidelines provide that agencies should assess the takings
implications of their proposed actions to determine their potential for a compensable
taking and that decision makers should consider other viable alternatives, when
available, to meet statutorily required objectives while minimizing the potential impact on
the public treasury. In cases where alternatives are not available, the potential takings
implications are to be noted, such as in a notice of proposed rulemaking. The guidelines
also state that takings implication assessments are internal, predecisional management
aids and that they are not subject to judicial review. In addition, the form and manner of
these assessments are left up to each agency

78
minimizing government intrusion upon private property rights and to budget for the
payment of just compensation when such intrusions were inevitable. The President
issued this order, EO 12630, on March 15, 1988.
According to the EO, actions subject to its provisions include regulations, proposed
regulations, proposed legislation, comments on proposed legislation, or other policy
statements that, if implemented or enacted, could cause a taking of private property.
Such actions may include rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing,
permitting, or other conditions, requirements or limitations on private property use. The
EO also enumerates agency actions that are not subject to the order, including the
exercise of the power of eminent domain and law enforcement actions involving seizure,
for violations of law, of property for forfeiture, or as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Among other things, the EO requires the U.S. Attorney General to issue guidelines to
help agencies evaluate the takings implications of their proposed actions, and, as
necessary, to update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings case
law resulting from U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Attorney General issued these
guidelines on June 30, 1988, to establish a basic, uniform framework for federal
agencies to use in their internal evaluations of the takings implications of administrative,
regulatory, and legislative policies and actions.10 In addition, the guidelines discuss
agency responsibilities for implementing the EO and the process for preparing agency-
specific supplemental guidelines.
The Attorney General’s guidelines provide that agencies should assess the takings
implications of their proposed actions to determine their potential for a compensable
taking and that decision makers should consider other viable alternatives, when
available, to meet statutorily required objectives while minimizing the potential impact on
the public treasury. In cases where alternatives are not available, the potential takings
implications are to be noted, such as in a notice of proposed rulemaking. The guidelines
also state that takings implication assessments are internal, predecisional management
aids and that they are not subject to judicial review. In addition, the form and manner of
these assessments are left up to each agency.
The guidelines also include an appendix that provides detailed information regarding
some of the case law surrounding consideration of whether a taking has occurred and
the extent of any potential just compensation claim. For example, the appendix
discusses the Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York11 case in which the
Supreme Court set out a list of three “influential factors” for determining whether an
alleged regulatory taking should be compensated: (1) the economic impact of the
government action, (2) the extent to which the government action interfered with
reasonable investment-backed expectations, and (3) the “character” of the government
action. However, the appendix provides a caveat that it is not intended to be an
exhaustive account of relevant case law, adding that the consideration of the potential
takings of an action as well as the applicable case law will normally require close
consultation between agency program personnel and agency counsel.
In addition to requiring guidelines, the EO requires OMB to ensure that the policies of
executive branch agencies are consistent with the EO’s principles, criteria, and
requirements. For example, for proposed regulatory actions subject to OMB review,
agencies are required to include a discussion summarizing the potential takings
implications of these actions in their submissions to OMB. The EO also requires OMB to
ensure that all takings awards levied against the agencies are properly accounted for in
agencies’ budget submissions.
Despite the existence of the EO, some Members of Congress hold the view that the
enforcement of the just compensation clause with respect to regulatory takings is
inadequate and that statutory measures are needed to reduce the infringement on

79
private property rights resulting from government regulation and to ensure compensation
in the event of such infringement. For example, a variety of legislation has been
proposed in Congress over the past 10 years to achieve those goals. In general,
according to a study prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, these bills included
measures that would (1) increase the requirements for analysis and reporting that
federal agencies must meet before making decisions that could restrict the uses of
private property, (2) relax the procedural requirements that must be satisfied before a
federal court will hear the merits of a takings claim, and (3) require that the budget of an
agency whose action triggers a regulatory compensation claim be the source of any
compensation awarded.12 Although property rights advocates have supported these
legislative initiatives, others, including some environmental groups, have questioned the
need for legislation and voiced the view that the consideration of the takings potential of
an agency action should not impede the government’s ability to protect the environment
or provide other societal benefits.

80