Summary
The Supreme Court held that a permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by the government constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, regardless of the occupation’s size or economic impact. The Court concluded that New York’s requirement allowing cable television companies to install equipment on rental property effected a taking of the occupied portions of the property. The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals was reversed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by government constitutes a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether New York Executive Law § 828 effects a taking when it requires landlords to permit cable television companies to install and maintain equipment on rental property.
- Whether the Court should determine the amount of compensation due for the taking.
Holdings
- A permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by government is a taking requiring just compensation, regardless of the public interest served by the occupation or the occupation's minimal economic impact.
- New York Executive Law § 828 constituted a taking because it required Loretto to permit Teleprompter's permanent physical occupation of portions of her building; both crossover and noncrossover installations were takings.
- The Court did not decide whether the statutory fee was adequate compensation; the amount of compensation was left for the state courts to determine on remand.
Key quotations
“We conclude that a permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve.” (426)
“In short, when the "character of the governmental action," Penn Central, 438 U.S., at 124, is a permanent physical occupation of property, our cases uniformly have found a taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner.” (434-435)
“Our holding today is very narrow. We affirm the traditional rule that a permanent physical occupation of property is a taking.” (441)
Factual background
Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building in New York City in 1971. Teleprompter had installed cable television wires, boxes, and related equipment on the roof and exterior of the building, including crossover and noncrossover lines, pursuant to a New York statute requiring landlords to permit such installations. The installations were permanently attached to the building by screws, nails, and bolts, and Loretto sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging trespass and a taking without just compensation.
Procedural history
Loretto brought a class action alleging trespass and an uncompensated taking arising from the installation of cable television equipment on her apartment building. The New York Supreme Court, Special Term, granted summary judgment to Teleprompter and the City of New York; the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute did not effect a taking. The Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings concerning compensation.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the state courts for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion, including determination of the amount of just compensation.