Thursday, June 17, 2010

Supreme Court Decides Stop the Beach Renourishment

The big property rights case of the Term has been decided.  In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, the Court rejected the judicial takings claim unanimously.  The opinion is here:  Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, but it is not the opinion of the court on all parts.  Justices Kennedy and Breyer wrote separately.  We've posted about the case previously here, here, here, and here.  For a great analysis of what was at stake in the case, re-read Ben Barros' excellent post from last year. 

Also, tons of links (briefs, case history, oral argument, news articles) at the SCOTUS Wiki page for the case.

A quick look seems to indicate that the Justices split (4-4, with J. Stevens taking no part) over the issue of whether there can be such a thing as a judicial taking under the right circumstances.  Now, to go read the opinions . . . .

Matt Festa

Beaches, Caselaw, Coastal Regulation, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Judicial Review, Property Rights, Property Theory, State Government, Supreme Court, Takings | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court Decides Stop the Beach Renourishment:


Stop the Beach argued this case very badly. Why? Because they are both cowardly and ignorant. They refused to address the "government purpose" prong of minimum scrutiny, and they refused to address the question, what in fact is property?

You can't find something with nothing, and that is what Scalia said. Precedent was on the side of Florida, and Stop the Beach had NO new arguments.

End of case. Fools.

Posted by: John Ryskamp | Jun 17, 2010 11:21:59 AM