Constitutional Law (Takings)
544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005)
Study notes for Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The 'substantially advances' formula is invalid for identifying regulatory takings under the Fifth Amendment.
In Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the standards for identifying a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Court explicitly rejected the 'substantially advances' test articulated in Agins v. City of Tiburon as an invalid framework, emphasizing that such inquiries belong within the scope of due process rather than takings law. This decision underscores the need for a coherent standard to evaluate government regulation effects on property rights, which is crucial for both legal practitioners and lawmakers.
Lingle throws out the advance test!
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Agins v. City of Tiburon | In Agins, the Court employed the 'substantially advances' test, which was later rejected in Lingle. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City | Penn Central established a multi-factored test for regulatory takings, which remains valid post-Lingle. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | Lucas emphasized a categorical approach to takings, while Lingle focuses on due process and valid takings frameworks. |
Rejecting the 'substantially advances' test ensures that property rights are not unduly compromised by vague regulations.
Eliminating this test might hinder legitimate governmental efforts to regulate in the public interest.
On exams, expect to analyze the implications of Lingle on takings jurisprudence and regulatory frameworks. Compare it with previous rulings like Agins.