Regulatory Taking: Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Judgment in Murr
Article Sidebar
Published:
Dec 17, 2018
Keywords:
Regulatory Takings Constitutional Law Takings Clause Private Property Property Rights Conceptual Severance Eminent Domain การเวนคืนที่ดินโดยบทบัญญัติกฎหมาย รัฐธรรมนูญ สิทธิที่จะรับค่าชดเชยจากการเวนคืน ทรัพย์สินส่วนบุคคล สิทธิในทรัพย์สิน ค่าชดเชยสิทธิถูกกระทบ อำนาจรัฐในการเวนคืนที่ดินเพื่อสาธารณประโยชน์
Main Article Content
Abstract
On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision in Murr v. Wisconsin provided more specific guidelines in the 1978 case, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, for courts to use in defining “the relevant unit of property” to perform regulatory takings. This article analyzes whether the Supreme Court made the right judgment in applying the three factors of the Penn Cent. Transp. Co. test, especially the first factor, the extent of economic impact, by considering guidelines from previous regulatory taking cases.
เมื่อวันที่ 23 มิถุนายน 2560 ศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาได้ตัดสินคดีพิพาทระหว่าง Murr กับรัฐวิสคอนซิน ด้วยมติ 5 ต่อ 3 ในการกำหนดความหมายของ “ที่ดินที่เกี่ยวข้อง” สำหรับใช้ในการพิจารณาการเวนคืนที่ดินโดยบทบัญญัติกฎหมายเพิ่มเติมจากแนวทางที่ศาลในคดีระหว่างบริษัท Penn Central Transportation Co. กับนิวยอร์ก ได้เคยตัดสินเป็นบรรทัดฐานไว้ บทความฉบับนี้เขียนขึ้นเพื่อวิเคราะห์ว่าศาลสูงสุดสหรัฐอเมริกาได้ตัดสินในคดีดังกล่าวถูกต้องแล้วหรือไม่ ภายใต้หลักเกณฑ์ 3 ประการที่ศาลในคดี Penn Central Transportation Co. ใช้สำหรับพิจารณาการเวนคืนที่ดินโดยบทบัญญัติกฎหมาย โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งหลักเกณฑ์เรื่องขอบเขตของผลกระทบในทางเศรษฐกิจ โดยพิจารณาจากแนวทางของศาลในคดีก่อน ๆ
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
References
Books
David A. Dana & Thomas W. Merrill, Property: Takings (Foundation Press New York 2002)
John Lewis, A Treatise On The Law Of Eminent Domain In The United States (Vol. 1 Callaghan & company, Chicago 1888)
Howard Strickland Abbott, ‘A Treatise on the Law of Municipal Corporations’ Vol. 2, (Keefe-Davidson Company 1906)
John Lewis, A Treatise On The Law Of Eminent Domain In The United States (Vol. 1 3rd edn, Callaghan & company, Chicago 1909)
Julius L. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain (3rd edn. rev., M. Bender 1998)
Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property And The Power Of Eminent Domain (Harvard University Press London 1985)
Articles
Angela Chang, ‘Demystifying Conceptual Severance: A Comparative Study of the United States, Canada, and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) 98 Cornell L. Rev. 965
Charles A. Reich, ‘The New Property’ (1964) 73 Yale L. J. 733
Courtney C. Tedrowe, ‘Conceptual Severance and Takings in the Federal Circuit’ (2000) 85 Cornell L. Rev. 586
D. Benjamin Barros ‘Defining “Property” in the Just Compensation Clause’ (1995) 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1853
D. Benjamin Barros, ‘The Police Power and the Takings Clause 58’ (2004) U. Miami L. Rev. 471
Richard A. Epstein, ‘Disappointed Expectations: How The Supreme Court Failed To Clean Up Taking Law In Murr v Wisconsin’ (2017) 11 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 151
Danaya C. Wright, ‘A New Time for Denominators: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Property in the Regulatory Takings Relevant Parcel Analysis’ (2004) 34 Envtl. L. 175
Frank I. Michelman, ‘Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law’ (1967) 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1165
Frank I. Michelman, ‘Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ (1996) 49 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 1
Holly Doremus, ‘Takings and Transition’ (2003) 19 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 1
J.E. Penner, ‘The “Bundle of Rights” Picture of Property’ (1996) 43 UCLA L. Rev. 711
Jeremy Waldron, ‘What Is Private Property?’ (1985) 5 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 313
John D. Echeverria & Sharron Dennis, ‘The Takings Issue And The Due Process Clause: A Way Out Of A Doctrinal Confusion’ (1993) 17 VT. L. Rev. 695
John D. Echeverria, ‘Making Sense of Penn Central’ (2005) 23 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 171
Leif Wenar, ‘The Concept of Property and the Takings Clause’ (1997) 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1923
Margaret Jane Radin, ‘The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings’ (1988) 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1667
Susan Rose-Ackerman, ‘Against Ad Hocery: A Com¬ment on Michelman’ (1988) 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1697
William J. Patton, Comment, ‘Affirmative Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings’ (1987) 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1215
William Michael Treanor, Note, ‘The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment’, (1985) 94 Yale L.J. 694
Cases
Agins v City of Tiburon, 447 US 255 (1980)
Andrus v Allard, 444 US 51 (1979)
Armstrong v United States, 364 US 40 (1960)
Bassett v United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 63 (2002)
Borough of Harvey Cedars v Karan, 70 A.3d 524 (N.J. 2013).
Brown v Maryland, 25 US 419 (1827)
Brothers v United States, 594 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1979)
Calaway v Brown Cty., 553 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996)
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v City of Chicago, 166 US 226 (1897)
City of Norwich v Styx Inv'rs in Norwich, LLC, 887 A.2d 910 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
Clifton v Blanchester, 964 N.E.2d 414 (Ohio 2012)
Collins v State Highway Com., 66 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1937)
Commonwealth v Alger, 61 Mass. 53 (1851)
Coniston Corp. v Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1988)
Crowley v Christensen, 137 US 86 (1890)
Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v Los Angeles County, 482 US 304 (1987)
Fla. Rock Indus., Inc. v United States, 791 F.2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Fla. Rock Indus. v United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Hadacheck v Sebastian, 239 US 394 (1915)
Hearts Bluff Game Ranch v State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012)
Hodel v Irving, 481 US 704 (1987)
Kaiser Aetna v United States, 444 US 164 (1979)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v DeBenedictis, 480 US 470 (1987)
Klopping v City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39 (1972)
Lingle v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 US 528 (2005)
Littlejohn v Fink, 190 N.W. 1020 (1922)
Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 (1982)
Lucas v S.C. Coastal Council, 505 US 1003 (1992)
Mayor of New York v Miln, 36 US 102 (1837)
McCarran Int'l Airport v Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, (2006)
McQueen v S.C. Coastal Council, 580 S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 2003)
Mugler v Kansas, 123 US 623 (1887)
Murr v Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017)
Palazzolo v Rhode Island, 533 US 606 (2001)
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 US 104 (1978)
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon, 260 US 393 (1922)
Pete v United States, 531 F.2d 1018 (1976)
Phillips v Wash. Legal Found., 524 US 156 (1998)
Res. Invs., Inc. v United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 447 (2009)
San Diego Gas and Elec. Co. v City of San Diego, 450 US 621 (1981)
Sorenti Bros. v Commonwealth, 9 N.E.3d 779 (Mass. 2014)
State v Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 1993)
State by Humphrey v Strom, 493 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. 1992)
State of Arkansas v State of Mississippi, 250 US 39 (1919)
Stearns Co. v United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 446 (2002)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002)
United States v 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984)
United States v 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 US 506 (1979)
Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926)
Walcek v United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 248, 271 (2001)
Walcek v United States, 303 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Yee v City of Escondido, 503 US 519, 523 (1992)
Zealy v City of Waukesha, 548 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. 1996)
Regulations
16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9) (2008)
16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994)
33 U.S.C. §§ 203(5)(E)-(F), 1251-1387 (1994)
46 U.S.C. § 103 (2006)
St. Croix County, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 17.36(I)(4)(a) (Jul. 2007)
U.S. Const. Amend. V and XIV
Other Materials
Miriam Seifter, ‘Argument preview: Defining the denominator in regulatory takings law’ (SCOTUSblog, 14 March, 2017)
The Municipal Research and Services Center, ‘Regulatory Takings’ (Explore Topics) (Oct. 9, 2017)
David A. Dana & Thomas W. Merrill, Property: Takings (Foundation Press New York 2002)
John Lewis, A Treatise On The Law Of Eminent Domain In The United States (Vol. 1 Callaghan & company, Chicago 1888)
Howard Strickland Abbott, ‘A Treatise on the Law of Municipal Corporations’ Vol. 2, (Keefe-Davidson Company 1906)
John Lewis, A Treatise On The Law Of Eminent Domain In The United States (Vol. 1 3rd edn, Callaghan & company, Chicago 1909)
Julius L. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain (3rd edn. rev., M. Bender 1998)
Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property And The Power Of Eminent Domain (Harvard University Press London 1985)
Articles
Angela Chang, ‘Demystifying Conceptual Severance: A Comparative Study of the United States, Canada, and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) 98 Cornell L. Rev. 965
Charles A. Reich, ‘The New Property’ (1964) 73 Yale L. J. 733
Courtney C. Tedrowe, ‘Conceptual Severance and Takings in the Federal Circuit’ (2000) 85 Cornell L. Rev. 586
D. Benjamin Barros ‘Defining “Property” in the Just Compensation Clause’ (1995) 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1853
D. Benjamin Barros, ‘The Police Power and the Takings Clause 58’ (2004) U. Miami L. Rev. 471
Richard A. Epstein, ‘Disappointed Expectations: How The Supreme Court Failed To Clean Up Taking Law In Murr v Wisconsin’ (2017) 11 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 151
Danaya C. Wright, ‘A New Time for Denominators: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Property in the Regulatory Takings Relevant Parcel Analysis’ (2004) 34 Envtl. L. 175
Frank I. Michelman, ‘Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law’ (1967) 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1165
Frank I. Michelman, ‘Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ (1996) 49 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 1
Holly Doremus, ‘Takings and Transition’ (2003) 19 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 1
J.E. Penner, ‘The “Bundle of Rights” Picture of Property’ (1996) 43 UCLA L. Rev. 711
Jeremy Waldron, ‘What Is Private Property?’ (1985) 5 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 313
John D. Echeverria & Sharron Dennis, ‘The Takings Issue And The Due Process Clause: A Way Out Of A Doctrinal Confusion’ (1993) 17 VT. L. Rev. 695
John D. Echeverria, ‘Making Sense of Penn Central’ (2005) 23 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 171
Leif Wenar, ‘The Concept of Property and the Takings Clause’ (1997) 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1923
Margaret Jane Radin, ‘The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings’ (1988) 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1667
Susan Rose-Ackerman, ‘Against Ad Hocery: A Com¬ment on Michelman’ (1988) 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1697
William J. Patton, Comment, ‘Affirmative Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings’ (1987) 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1215
William Michael Treanor, Note, ‘The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment’, (1985) 94 Yale L.J. 694
Cases
Agins v City of Tiburon, 447 US 255 (1980)
Andrus v Allard, 444 US 51 (1979)
Armstrong v United States, 364 US 40 (1960)
Bassett v United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 63 (2002)
Borough of Harvey Cedars v Karan, 70 A.3d 524 (N.J. 2013).
Brown v Maryland, 25 US 419 (1827)
Brothers v United States, 594 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1979)
Calaway v Brown Cty., 553 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996)
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v City of Chicago, 166 US 226 (1897)
City of Norwich v Styx Inv'rs in Norwich, LLC, 887 A.2d 910 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
Clifton v Blanchester, 964 N.E.2d 414 (Ohio 2012)
Collins v State Highway Com., 66 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1937)
Commonwealth v Alger, 61 Mass. 53 (1851)
Coniston Corp. v Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1988)
Crowley v Christensen, 137 US 86 (1890)
Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v Los Angeles County, 482 US 304 (1987)
Fla. Rock Indus., Inc. v United States, 791 F.2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Fla. Rock Indus. v United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Hadacheck v Sebastian, 239 US 394 (1915)
Hearts Bluff Game Ranch v State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012)
Hodel v Irving, 481 US 704 (1987)
Kaiser Aetna v United States, 444 US 164 (1979)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v DeBenedictis, 480 US 470 (1987)
Klopping v City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39 (1972)
Lingle v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 US 528 (2005)
Littlejohn v Fink, 190 N.W. 1020 (1922)
Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 (1982)
Lucas v S.C. Coastal Council, 505 US 1003 (1992)
Mayor of New York v Miln, 36 US 102 (1837)
McCarran Int'l Airport v Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, (2006)
McQueen v S.C. Coastal Council, 580 S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 2003)
Mugler v Kansas, 123 US 623 (1887)
Murr v Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017)
Palazzolo v Rhode Island, 533 US 606 (2001)
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 US 104 (1978)
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon, 260 US 393 (1922)
Pete v United States, 531 F.2d 1018 (1976)
Phillips v Wash. Legal Found., 524 US 156 (1998)
Res. Invs., Inc. v United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 447 (2009)
San Diego Gas and Elec. Co. v City of San Diego, 450 US 621 (1981)
Sorenti Bros. v Commonwealth, 9 N.E.3d 779 (Mass. 2014)
State v Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 1993)
State by Humphrey v Strom, 493 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. 1992)
State of Arkansas v State of Mississippi, 250 US 39 (1919)
Stearns Co. v United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 446 (2002)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002)
United States v 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984)
United States v 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 US 506 (1979)
Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926)
Walcek v United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 248, 271 (2001)
Walcek v United States, 303 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Yee v City of Escondido, 503 US 519, 523 (1992)
Zealy v City of Waukesha, 548 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. 1996)
Regulations
16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9) (2008)
16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994)
33 U.S.C. §§ 203(5)(E)-(F), 1251-1387 (1994)
46 U.S.C. § 103 (2006)
St. Croix County, Wis., Code of Ordinances ch. 17.36(I)(4)(a) (Jul. 2007)
U.S. Const. Amend. V and XIV
Other Materials
Miriam Seifter, ‘Argument preview: Defining the denominator in regulatory takings law’ (SCOTUSblog, 14 March, 2017)
The Municipal Research and Services Center, ‘Regulatory Takings’ (Explore Topics) (Oct. 9, 2017)