Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2029965
 
 

Footnotes (258)



 


 



Going Rogue: Stop the Beach Renourishment as an Object of Morbid Fascination


Mary Doyle


University of Miami - School of Law

Stephen J. Schnably


University of Miami School of Law

March 16, 2012

Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 83-140 (December 2012)
University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-07

Abstract:     
Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue.

Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand: The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue -- can a state court commit a taking? -- while slipping in a major rewrite of takings law that would undermine the Court's recent, unanimous effort to clarify it.

Second, feigned obliviousness: The plurality opinion conveniently overlooks the Court's federalism jurisprudence even as it would expand the federal courts' power over state law.

Third, knowing artlessness: Despite being written as a virtuoso performance -- identifying a case the Florida Supreme Court "overlooked" -- the plurality's treatment of state law betrays surprising naivete‚ as to how state law is made, though, as it turns out, this seeming naivete‚ serves the purpose of shifting power within states from legislatures to courts.

While the history and tone of Justice Scalia's close attention to beach access issues makes pique a surprisingly strong candidate for why the plurality went rogue, the more worrying explanation is the willingness of the more conservative members of the Court to expand their own power into new areas of state law without the slightest sign of support from the political branches. There is a danger that conservative attacks on the courts over decisions on controversial social issues will distract from a more basic problem: If the Court's enforcement of federalism rests on what Justice O'Connor called Congress's "underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint," we suggest that commentary should focus on the Court's own similarly underdeveloped capacity.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

Keywords: constitutional law, judicial takings, federalism, separation of powers, judicial role

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 31, 2012 ; Last revised: February 4, 2013

Suggested Citation

Doyle, Mary and Schnably, Stephen J., Going Rogue: Stop the Beach Renourishment as an Object of Morbid Fascination (March 16, 2012). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 83-140 (December 2012); University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2029965 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2029965

Contact Information

Mary Doyle
University of Miami - School of Law ( email )
1311 Miller Drive, G468
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States
Stephen J. Schnably (Contact Author)
University of Miami School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.miami.edu/facadmin/sschnably.php

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 294
Downloads: 45
Footnotes:  258

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.468 seconds