| Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 26, 2001 Decided June 28, 2001 |
||||||
| Full case name | Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island et al. | |||||
| Citations | 533 U.S. 606 (more) 21 S. Ct. 2448; 150 L. Ed. 2d 592; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4910; 69 U.S.L.W. 4605; 52 ERC (BNA) 1609; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5439; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6685; 32 ELR 20516; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3358; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 458 |
|||||
| Prior history | On certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. | |||||
| Subsequent history | Remanded to Rhode Island Supreme Court. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas (and Stevens as to Part II-A) | |||||
| Concurrence | O'Connor | |||||
| Concurrence | Scalia | |||||
| Concur/dissent | Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Souter, Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Breyer | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV. | ||||||
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.
Contents |
Prior to 1971, owners of coastal land required a permit from the Rhode Island Division of Harbors and Rivers (DHR) in order to erect structures on coastal lands. In 1971, Rhode Island enacted legislation creating the Coastal Resources Management Council, charged with protecting the state's coastal properties. Regulations promulgated by the council protected coastal salt marshes as "coastal wetlands,'" on which construction was severely limited.
In 1959, Petitioner Palazzolo and business associates, operating under the name Shore Gardens, Inc. (SGI) purchased three undeveloped parcels on the Rhode Island coast. Petitioner Palazzolo eventually became sole shareholder of SGI, and began efforts to develop the land by submitting parcelling plans to the town. As the land required significant filling, Petitioner Palazzolo submitted applications for permits from the Division of Harbors and Rivers, which were denied. In 1978, Palazzolo acquired all of SGI's properties. In 1983, Petitioner Palazzolo again attempted to develop the land, submitting several permits, all of which were rejected. He also challenged the Council's determinations as contrary to the principles of state administrative law, but the courts affirmed the Council's actions.
Petitioner Palazzolo sued in Rhode Island courts for inverse condemnation. Eventually, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected his claims.
Petitioner Palazzolo sought reversal of Rhode Island courts' judgments, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Court addressed whether the Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in holding that Petitioner did not have standing to claim a regulatory taking because he acquired the property after the enactment of regulations, and that Petitioner did not endure a total taking because some of the parcel remains economically usable.
The Court ruled that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.
The Court held that the Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in holding that Petitioner did not have standing to sue because he acquired the property after the enactment of regulations. The Court did not fully address the issue of whether Rhode Island Supreme Court correctly held that Petitioner did not endure a total taking because some of the parcel remains economically usable.
The majority argued as follows: The argument that a claimant who acquires property after the enactment of a regulation waives the right to challenge such regulation as an unconstitutional regulatory taking fails because (1) such a principle would make the constitutionality of a regulation a matter of the passage of time, thereby creating a "[statute of limitations]" on a constitutional right; (2) such a principle also prejudices owners at the time of regulation, whose ability to transfer the land has become seriously impaired; and (3) such a principle would create different and unequal rights between different classes of owners (old owners and new owners).
Rhode Island Supreme Court judgment reversed in part and remanded.
Case thrown out at a lower court.
Unknown.