Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Encyclopedia
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606
(2001), 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.
Defendant/Respondent : Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council.
. Eventually, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected his claims.
granted certiorari
.
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.
because the denial deprives him of "all economically beneficial use" of the land.
Rhode Island Supreme court : The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that (1) Petitioner Palazzolo had no right to challenge the permit denial as a total taking because he acquired the property after the enactment of the regulation under which the permit was denied, and therefore had sufficient notice of such regulation; (2) the upland portions of the land were available for development, and therefore Palazzolo was not deprived of all economically beneficial use; and (3) Palazzolo cannot claim a taking under the more general balancing test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
.
Scalia, J., concurring. :
Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. :
Ginsberg, J., dissenting. :
Souter, J., dissenting. :
Breyer, J., dissenting. :
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2001), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking
Regulatory taking
Regulatory taking refers to a situation in which a government regulates a property to such a degree that the regulation effectively amounts to an exercise of the government's eminent domain power without actually divesting the property's owner of title to the property.-United States law:In common...
by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.
Parties
Plaintiff/Petitioner : Anthony Palazzolo, owner of a waterfront parcel of land in the town of Westerly, Rhode Island, almost all of which is designated coastal wetlands under Rhode Island law.Defendant/Respondent : Rhode Island
Rhode Island
The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, more commonly referred to as Rhode Island , is a state in the New England region of the United States. It is the smallest U.S. state by area...
Coastal Resources Management Council.
State of law
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.Facts of case
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.Prior history
Petitioner Palazzolo sued in Rhode Island courts for inverse condemnationInverse condemnation
Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of Constitution. In some states the term also includes damaging of property as well as taking it. In order to be...
. Eventually, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected his claims.
Procedural posture
Petitioner Palazzolo sought reversal of Rhode Island courts' judgments, and the United States Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
.
Issue
The Court addressed whether the Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in holding that Petitioner did not have standing to claim a regulatory takingRegulatory taking
Regulatory taking refers to a situation in which a government regulates a property to such a degree that the regulation effectively amounts to an exercise of the government's eminent domain power without actually divesting the property's owner of title to the property.-United States law:In common...
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.
Arguments/theories
Petitioner : Petitioner Palazzolo argued that the denial of a permit for filling by the Respondent Council effects a taking without compensation under the total takings analysis of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.-Parties:Plaintiff/Petitioner :...
because the denial deprives him of "all economically beneficial use" of the land.
Rhode Island Supreme court : The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that (1) Petitioner Palazzolo had no right to challenge the permit denial as a total taking because he acquired the property after the enactment of the regulation under which the permit was denied, and therefore had sufficient notice of such regulation; (2) the upland portions of the land were available for development, and therefore Palazzolo was not deprived of all economically beneficial use; and (3) Palazzolo cannot claim a taking under the more general balancing test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision on compensation for regulatory takings.-The New York City Landmarks Law:...
.
Rule of law
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.Holding
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.Reasoning
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).Notable concurring and dissenting opinions
O'Connor, J., concurring. :Scalia, J., concurring. :
Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. :
Ginsberg, J., dissenting. :
Souter, J., dissenting. :
Breyer, J., dissenting. :