Regulatory Takings

Key Decisions

Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 578 (2005)
In a decision handed down on May 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled that an allegation that a regulation fails to substantially advance a legitimate state interest does not state a viable claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. GELPI had the privilege of serving as co-counsel for the petitioners, the Governor and Attorney General of Hawaii.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002).
In a decision handed down on April 23, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a regulatory takings challenge to a temporary moratorium on development around Lake Tahoe, emphasizing the narrowness of the Court’s per se takings rules. GELPI filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)
In a decision handed down on June 28, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an owner’s awareness of a regulatory restriction at the time she purchased the property is a very relevant, but not necessarily dispositive, factor in regulatory takings analysis. GELPI filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Professors Daniel W. Bromley, David E. Ervin, Barry Goodwin, Ray Huffaker, and C. Ford Runge.

Top of Page