Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Federal Circuit issued a decision in the long-running Rose Acre Farms case. Here are the first paragraphs:
In 1992, Rose Acre Farms, Inc. (“Rose Acre”) filed the present action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, claiming that United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “the government”) regulations that restricted egg sales from its farms and caused the loss of egg-laying chickens that tested positive for the presence of salmonella bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In 2003, the trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations as well as for hens seized for testing.
In our previous appeal, we held that the court misapplied the standards governing regulatory takings claims under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). We vacated and remanded for appropriate reconsideration. We must again decide whether the trial court correctly held that the government’s regulations, which restricted the sale of certain of Rose Acre’s eggs during the approximately two-year period, constituted a taking for which just compensation is due. As explained below, we hold that, upon a proper assessment of the Penn Central factors, the USDA did not commit a compensable taking. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.
I need to spend more time with the opinion, but I think I disagree with the Court's discussion of the impact of Lingle on the character of the government act prong of the Penn Central test. In any event, a very interesting opinion that really engages in Lingle's impact on takings law.
[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]