The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, January 7, 2002
Decision: Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Issues: Due Process, Takings Clause

Advocates

Michael M. Berger (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)
John Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria from August 24, 1981, until August 26, 1983 and from August 27, 1983, until April 25, 1984, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area. Real estate owners affected by the moratoria and an association representing such owners, including the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., filed suits, claiming that TRPA's actions constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The District Court found that TRPA had not effected a partial taking; however, it concluded that the moratoria did constitute a categorical taking because TRPA temporarily deprived real estate owners of all economically viable use of their land. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that because the regulations had only a temporary impact, no categorical taking had occurred.

Question

Does a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan constitutes a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause?

Conclusion

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that that the mere enactment of the regulations implementing the moratoria did not constitute a per se taking of the landowners' property. The Court reasoned that whether a taking occurred depended upon the considerations of landowners' expectations, actual impact, public interest, and reasons for the moratoria. Moreover, the Court concluded that the adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Scalia.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Takings Clause
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1167/>
(last visited ).