Penn Central and Its Reluctant Muftis

67 Pages Posted: 4 Nov 2013

See all articles by Steven Eagle

Steven Eagle

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Date Written: November 4, 2013


This Article explores the role of the Supreme Court’s Penn Central line of regula-tory takings cases, from the premise that the purpose of the Penn Central doctrine is to advance fundamental fairness in an era of pervasive land use regulation. In particular, the Article focuses on whether the doctrine inherently is self-defeating, since judges are reluctant to act as “grand muftis” of zoning and planning, and hence are driven towards the type of formulaic rules that the doctrine eschews.

Keywords: mufti, condemnation, just compensation, investment-backed expectations, ripeness, substantive due process, errant language, public use, heightened scrutiny, Lingle, Palazzolo, Dolan, Koontz, Mahon, Lucas, Armstrong, Williamson County, Lochner, Olech, Arkansas Game and Fish, Agins, San Remo Hotel

JEL Classification: K11, R52, H77

Suggested Citation

Eagle, Steven, Penn Central and Its Reluctant Muftis (November 4, 2013). Baylor Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, Forthcoming; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-59. Available at SSRN:

Steven Eagle (Contact Author)

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics