Summary
The Supreme Court held that the landowner's regulatory-takings claim was not ripe because the planning commission had not reached a final decision regarding the application of zoning and subdivision regulations to the property. The landowner had not sought available variances, and the Court therefore could not assess the regulation's economic impact or interference with investment-backed expectations. The Court also declined to decide whether a temporary regulatory taking requires money damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a regulatory taking claim is ripe when the government entity has not reached a final decision regarding the application of its regulations to the property.
- Whether a property owner alleging a taking by a state or local government must first pursue an adequate state procedure for obtaining just compensation.
- Whether the Court should decide whether temporary regulatory interference constitutes a taking requiring money damages or instead violates due process.
Holdings
- A claim that the application of land-use regulations effects a taking is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding how the regulations will apply to the property. Because Hamilton Bank had not sought available variances, the Commission's disapproval of the preliminary plat was not a final, reviewable decision.
- When a state provides an adequate procedure for obtaining just compensation, a property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until the owner has used that procedure and been denied compensation.
- The Court declined to decide whether excessive land-use regulation should be analyzed as a Fifth Amendment taking requiring compensation or as a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation because the claim was premature under either theory.
Key quotations
“A claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” (473 U.S. at 186)
“The Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just compensation.” (473 U.S. at 194)
“In sum, respondent's claim is premature, whether it is analyzed as a deprivation of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, or as a taking under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (473 U.S. at 200)
Factual background
Hamilton Bank acquired through foreclosure 257.65 undeveloped acres within the Temple Hills subdivision. Earlier plans had contemplated a larger residential development, but the Commission later applied current zoning and subdivision regulations and disapproved Hamilton Bank's proposed preliminary plat based on density, slope, road, frontage, fire-protection, and related requirements. Hamilton Bank had not applied for all available variances or pursued Tennessee's inverse-condemnation procedure before filing its federal taking claim.
Procedural history
The District Court rejected the jury's taking verdict and modified the injunction. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the regulatory restrictions could constitute a taking and that the claim was supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit because the claim was premature: the Commission had not made a final decision regarding application of the regulations, and the respondent had not pursued Tennessee's procedure for obtaining compensation.
Remand instructions
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proceedings addressing the ripeness defects identified by the Court.