The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, March 30, 1987
Decision: Friday, June 26, 1987
Issues: Due Process, Takings Clause
Categories: eminent domain, fifth amendment, fourteenth amendment, police power, property, takings clause
Tags: Rehnquist: Miscellaneous, Rehnquist on iTunes U

Advocates

Robert K. Best (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Andrea Sheridan Ordin (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

The California Coastal Commission required owners of beachfront property wishing to obtain a building permit to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public.

Question

Did the requirement constitute a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest may be served by maintaining a "continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast." However, reasoned Justice Scalia, if California wished to use its power of eminent domain to do so, it must provide just compensation to the Nollans and other beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Nollan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Takings Clause
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Marshall
Wrote a dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_133/>
(last visited ).