26 Pages Posted: 4 Aug 2010 Last revised: 23 Mar 2014
Date Written: August 2, 2010
This essay, one of a collection of essays on Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection to be published by the Vermont Law Review, has two objectives. First, it attempts to situate the Supreme Court’s debate over the judicial takings concept within the framework of established takings doctrine. The results of this analysis suggest that the justices’ split over the judicial takings concept reflects fundamental disagreement about the relative virtues of per se vs. ad hoc analysis and about the nature of the Takings Clause as a constraint on government action.
Second, this essay assesses the merits of the judicial takings concept by analyzing the core issue of whether court rulings, like actions by the other branches of government, can constitute “takings” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Contrary to Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument that all branches of government must be treated the same under the Takings Clause, this essay concludes that there are numerous reasons for treating courts differently, including: (1) the judiciary is not vested with the eminent domain power; (2) the rationale that takings liability serves to constrain majoritarian political impulses generally does not apply to the judicial branch; (3) the judicial takings concept would undermine the relationship between the federal and state court systems; (4) the state courts’ institutional structure provides a relatively strong assurance of fidelity to federal constitutional values; and (5) court rulings on property law issues tend to apply broadly across the community rather than single out particular individuals to bear special burdens.
Keywords: Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Takings Doctrine, per se vs. ad hoc, Beach, renourishment
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Echeverria, John D., Stop the Beach Renourishment: Why the Judiciary is Different (August 2, 2010). Vermont Law Review, Forthcoming; Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 10-45. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1652351 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1652351