Regulatory Takings: The Supreme Court Tries to Prune Agins Without Stepping on Nollan and Dolan

摘要

In Lingle v. Chevron, the U.S. Supreme Court attempts to clarify its complex regulatory takings jurisprudence, but the Lingle ruling may raise as many new questions as it resolves. This case involved a Fifth Amendment takings challenge to a Hawaii statute that capped the rent that oil companies could charge to gasoline retailers who rent company-owned service stations. The unanimous Lingle ruling represents a reversal by the Court of a widely-cited takings rule it established a quarter-century ago in Agins v. City of Tiburon? In that case the Court declared that zoning is a compensable regulatory taking if it fails to "substantially advance legitimate state interests." In an opinion written by Justice O'Connor, the Lingle Court declares that the Agins "substantially advances test is not a valid takings test" and "has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence."