Vermont
How Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel applies in Vermont: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law—Takings and Substantive Due Process.
Vermont follows a careful scrutiny of regulatory takings claims, mirroring the standards set forth in federal case law while incorporating its own unique interpretations. In particular, the reliance on the public purpose and reasonableness tests is key in assessing whether a taking occurs under the Vermont Constitution.
In Vermont, the appropriate analysis for takings is through a combination of the three-pronged Penn Central test, incorporated within the state's considerations of public purpose and the regulatory nature of the action.
The Vermont Public Utility Commission held that regulations which do not result in a permanent appropriation of property rights do not constitute a taking under the Vermont Constitution.
This case affirmed that regulatory actions aiming at environmental protection must show clear governmental purpose to avoid a finding of unconstitutional taking.
The court held that a government’s land use regulation must balance individual property rights against public interest without resulting in a taking.
Vermont's approach closely aligns with the federal standard established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City regarding the balancing of interests in regulatory takings. However, Vermont places a heightened emphasis on public purpose and the reasonableness of regulations, potentially affecting outcomes in takings claims compared to the more flexible federal framework.
Issues related to takings and substantive due process are commonly tested in the Vermont bar exam, particularly in relation to state constitutional principles.