Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Media Items
Advocates
D. Kent Safriet (for the petitioner)
Scott D. Makar (Solicitor General of Floria, for the respondents)
Edwin S. Kneedler (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
08-1151
Petitioner: 
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.
Respondent: 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al.
Categories: 
judicial taking, takings clause
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection U.S. ___
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1151)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1961, Florida enacted the Beach and Shore Preservation Act ("BSPA") to restore and maintain critically eroded beaches within the state. In 2003, under the BSPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed for an Application for a Joint Coastal Permit and Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands in order to dredge sand from a shoal to rebuild a beach. Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. ("SBR"), an association of homeowners, subsequently challenged the issuance of the permit and the constitutionality of the BSPA. The Florida court of appeals rescinded the permit, holding that issuance would have resulted in an unconstitutional taking.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida first rephrased the certified question to determine whether the BSPA was "on its face" constitutional. Then, the court held that the BSPA was not unconstitutional, reasoning that it did not deprive land owners of littoral rights without just compensation.

Question: 

1) By reversing longstanding holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected, did the Florida Supreme Court cause a "judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

2) Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that eliminates constitutional littoral rights and replaces them with statutory rights, a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

2) Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that allows an executive agency to unilaterally modify a private landowner's property boundary without a judicial hearing or payment of just compensation a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Sponsor