Thursday, March 4, 2021
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Monday, February 22, 2021
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Bridge Aina Lea Case
By Robert Thomas @ 4:00 PM :: 857 Views :: Hawaii County , Development, Land Use

6a00d83451707369e20240a51cc266200b-800wi

Thomas, J., Dissenting From Denial Of Cert In Penn Central And Lucas Takings Case: "If there is no such thing as a regulatory taking, we should say so. And if there is, we should make clear when one occurs."

by Robert Thomas, InverseCondemnation, February 22, 2021

We were hoping for better news in a case we've been following in its various forms for what seems like forever. But today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to issue a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Comm'n, No. 20-54, a case in which a federal court jury concluded the property owner suffered both a Lucas and Penn Central taking, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that no reasonable jury could have found a taking.

We've always been told that bright lines are not appropriate in takings. That there are myriad ways in which government can affect property interests and property rights. That the courts should defer to the government's exercise of regulatory power. That per se rules such as Lucas and Loretto are not generally applicable. Instead, we're told, go prove a taking via the fact-intensive (non-exhaustive) at-least-three-part "factor" test from Penn Central. A test under which no one factor is determinative. In theory.

In practice, however, the Penn Central test is not really a factor test, but is a "one-strike" rule in which trial courts (or, in the case here, even an appellate court) keep the fact-finder from, you know, actually finding facts. Rather than rant against that application of the takings rules, we're just going to reprint the entirety of Justice Thomas's dissent from the denial of certiorari.   

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

I recently explained that “it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. ___, ___ (2017) (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 1).

Our current regulatory takings jurisprudence leaves much to be desired. A regulation effects a taking, we have said, whenever it “goes too far.” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922). This occurs categorically whenever a regulation requires a physical intrusion, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), or leaves land “without economically beneficial or productive options for its use,” Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1018 (1992). But such cases are exceedingly rare. See, e.g., Brown & Merriam, On the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Lucas: Making or Breaking the Takings Claim, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 1847, 1849–1850 (2017) (noting that in more than 1,700 cases over a 25-year period, there were only 27 successful takings claims under Lucas—a success rate of just 1.6%). For all other regulatory takings claims, the Court has “generally eschewed any set formula for determining how far is too far,” requiring lower courts instead “to engage in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 326 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Factors might include (1) “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant,” (2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations,” and (3) “the character of the governmental action.” Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978); see also Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538–539 (2005). But courts must also “‘weig[h] . . . all the relevant circumstances.’” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, 535 U.S., at 322. As one might imagine, nobody—not States, not property owners, not courts, nor juries—has any idea how to apply this standardless standard. This case illustrates the point. After an 8-day trial and with the benefit of jury instructions endorsed by both parties, the jury found a taking. The District Court, in turn, concluded that there was an adequate factual basis for this verdict. But the Ninth Circuit on appeal reweighed and reevaluated the same facts under the same legal tests to conclude that no reasonable jury could have found a taking. These starkly different outcomes based on the application of the same law indicate that we have still not provided courts with a “workable standard.” Pomeroy, Penn Central After 35 Years: A Three Part Balancing Test or One Strike Rule? 22 Fed. Cir. B. J. 677, 678 (2013). The current doctrine is “so vague and indeterminate that it invites unprincipled, subjective decision making” dependent upon the decisionmaker. Echeverria, Is the Penn Central Three-Factor Test Ready for History’s Dustbin? 52 Land Use L. & Zon. Dig. 3, 7 (2000); see also Eagle, The Four-Factor Penn Central Regulatory Takings Test, 118 Pa. St. L. Rev. 601, 602 (2014) (“[T]he doctrine has become a compilation of moving parts that are neither individually coherent nor collectively compatible”). A know-it-when-you-see-it test is no good if one court sees it and another does not. Next year will mark a “century since Mahon,” during which this “Court for the most part has refrained from” providing “definitive rules.” Murr, 582 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). It is time to give more than just “some, but not too specific, guidance.” Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001). If there is no such thing as a regulatory taking, we should say so. And if there is, we should make clear when one occurs.

I respectfully dissent.

Too bad the entire Court didn't see it that way. 

PDF: Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denial of certiorari, Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Comm'n,

CN: Justice Thomas said his colleagues should have agreed to take up the case to provide lower courts with a “workable standard” for evaluating claims of unconstitutional takings.

Links

TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

Register to Vote

2aHawaii

808 Silent Majority

ACA Signups Hawaii

ALEC

Alliance Defending Freedom

Aloha Pregnancy Care Center

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

AntiPlanner

Antonio Gramsci Reading List

A Place for Women in Waipio

Astronomy Hawaii

Ballotpedia Hawaii

Better Hawaii

Blaisdell Memorial Project

Broken Trust

Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

ChinaTownWatch.com

Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

Coffee Break

DeedySupport.com

DVids Hawaii

E Hana Kakou Kelii Akina

FIRE

Fix Oahu!

Follow the Money Hawaii

Frank in Hawaii

Front Page Magazine

Frontline: The Fixers

Genetic Literacy Project

Grassroot Institute

Habele.org

Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

Hawaii Catholic TV

Hawaii Christian Coalition

Hawaii Cigar Association

Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

Hawaii ConCon Info

Hawaii Credit Union Watch

Hawaii Crop Improvement Association

Hawaii Debt Clock

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Hawaii Family Advocates

Hawaii Family Forum

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

Hawaii Federalist Society

Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

Hawaii Future Project

Hawaii Gathering of Eagles

Hawaii History Blog

Hawaii Homeschool Association

Hawaii Jihadi Trial

Hawaii Life Alliance

Hawaii March for Life

Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

Hawaii Public Charter School Network

Hawaii Rifle Association

Hawaii Shippers Council

Hawaii Smokers Alliance

Hawaii State Data Lab

Hawaii Together

Heritage Foundation

HIEC.Coop

HiFiCo

Hiram Fong Papers

Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

Honolulu Navy League

Honolulu Traffic

House Minority Blog

I Vote Hawaii

If Hawaii News

Imua TMT

Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

Inside the Nature Conservancy

Inverse Condemnation

Investigative Project on Terrorism

Iowa Meets Maui

Jackson v Abercrombie

Jihad Watch

July 4 in Hawaii

Kahle v New Hope

Kakaako Cares

Kau TEA Party

Kauai Co GOP

Keep Hawaii's Heroes

KeyWiki

Land and Power in Hawaii

Legislative Committee Analysis Tool

Lessons in Firearm Education

Lingle Years

Malulani Foundation

Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

Malama Pregnancy Center of Maui

Mauna Kea Recreational Users Group

MentalIllnessPolicy.org

Middle East Forum--The Legal Project

Mililani Conservatives for Change

Military Home Educators' Network Oahu

Missile Defense Advocacy

MIS Veterans Hawaii

Muslim Brotherhood in America

NAMI Hawaii

NARTH

Natatorium.org

National Christian Foundation Hawaii

National Parents Org Hawaii

National Wind Watch

New Hawaiian

New Zeal

NFIB Hawaii News

No GMO Means No Aloha

Northwest Economic Policy Seminar

Not Dead Yet, Hawaii

Now What I Really Think

NRA-ILA Hawaii

Oahu Alternative Transport

ObamaCare Abortion Hawaii

Obookiah

OHA Lies

Opt Out Today

OurFutureHawaii.com

Pacific Aviation Museum

Patients Rights Council Hawaii

PEACE Hawaii

People vs Machine

Pritchett Cartoons

Pro-GMO Hawaii

P.U.E.O.

RailRipoff.com

Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

Republican Party -- Hawaii State

Research Institute for Hawaii USA

Rick Hamada Show

RJ Rummel

Robotics Organizing Committee

Save Dillingham Airfield

School Choice in Hawaii

SenatorFong.com

Sink the Jones Act

Statehood for Guam

Tax Foundation of Hawaii

The Real Hanabusa

Time Out Honolulu

Trustee Akina KWO Columns

UCC Truths

US Tax Foundation Hawaii Info

VAREP Honolulu

Waagey.org

West Maui Taxpayers Association

What Natalie Thinks

Whole Life Hawaii

Yes2TMT