A. Distinction 1. Violation of Due process a. Govt may act arbitrarily b. Govt action is simply invalid c. AS! is t"e action substantially related to le#itimate #ovt purpose$ %. &a'in# for public use w(o )ust compensation a. Govt may so intrusively re#ulate t"e use of property in pursuit of le#itimate police power ob)ectives as to ta'e w(o compensation b. Action is invalid w(o compensation 1* Govt may abandon its re#ulation %* +, validate action by payin# )ust compensation -t"rou#" eminent domain* c. AS! w"et"er a particular . ot"erwise le#itimate. e/ercise fo #ovt power constitutes a ta'in# at all. 0. &est 1. Is t"e Govts end le#itimate$ a. 1o$ action is invalid 2 in)unction 3 4 b. 5es$ Go to %. %. Is t"e means substantially related to t"e end$ a. 1o$ action is invalid b. 5es$ Go to 6. 6. Does t"e means permanently -$$$* destroy an essential property ri#"t$ a. 5es$ Action is invalid w(o compensation b. 1o$ #o to 7. 7. Does t"e value to t"e public of t"e end outwei#" t"e private "arm occasioned by t"e means$ -balance* a. 1o$ action is invalid w(o compensation b. 5es$ Action is valid as is. 8. 9ypot"esis Summari:ed 1. &est summari:ed a. An ille#itimate end )ustifies no means b. ;ven a le#itimate end )ustified only related means c. 1o end )ustifies any uncompensated means w"ic" permanently destroys an essential property ri#"t d. &"en end ot"erwise )ustifies t"e means w"en t"e value to t"e public of t"e end outwei#"s t"e private "arm resultin# from t"e means. II. 9ypot"esis annotated A. <iability p"ase 1. &"e rules of decision a. An ille#itimate ;nd =ustifies 1o >eans 1* <e#itimate police powers ob)ectives are preservin# t"e public "ealt". safety. morals. and #eneral welfare a* If w(in t"e police power. t"en wit"in t"e public use %* 8ourts role in reviewin# le#itimacy is an e/tremely narrow one ->id'iff* 6* Virtually any purpose pursued by a le#islature is le#itimate -eystone* 7* ,are case w"ere #ovt action is invalidated at t"is sta#e a* &"ou#" #ovt may not. even wit" payin#. e/ceed t"ose limits %. ;ven a <e#itimate ;nd =ustifies +nly ,elated >eans a. In pursuit of le#itimate ends. #ovt must proceed rationally by usin# means related to t"e end b. ?ntil recently. could e/pect court to defer t"eir )ud#ement c. ,ationally related(substantially related d. ;uclid! if t"e validity of t"e le#islative classification for :onin# purposes be fairly debatable. t"e le#islative )ud#ement must be allowed to control 1* &"us. if a plausible reason can be #iven for selectin# a particular means to ac"ieve a le#itimate end. courts s"ould defer to le#islative intent %* 0efore can be unconstitutional . must s"ow clearly arbitrary and unreasonable wit" no substantial relation to police power e. 1olan! essential ne/us between end and means 6. 1o ;nd =ustifies any ?ncompensated >eans W"ic" Permanently Destroys an ;ssential Property ,i#"t a. Some property ri#"ts are so essential t"at cant be ta'en wit"out compensation for any reason 1* ;/clude. possess. use. alienate %* <oretto! per se rule @@ any #ovt@aut"ori:ed permanent p"ysical invasion of private property is a compensable ta'in# a* Doesnt matter "ow trivial or w"at public interest served b. &"e ri#"t to e/clude 1* P"ysical occupation more severe t"an re#ulation of use b(c owner "as no control over timin#. e/tent. or nature of t"e invasion. a* Permanent p"ysical occupation "as occurred w"ere individuals are #iven a permanent and continuous ri#"t to pass on property -even t"ou#" no particular individual* %* Pruneyard! destruction of ri#"t to e/clude. w"ile still a ta'in#. may be so de minimus as not to reAuire compensation c. &"e ,i#"t &o ?se 1* >ust be a complete loss of use to be a ta'in# %* <andowner may not complain t"at property is restricted to a use ot"er t"an t"at w"ic" is most beneficial 6* &a'in# found w"en #ovt re#ulation pro"ibits all viable use of property 7* ;ssential to bundle to put property to some use B* 1uisance! restrictin# a particular use 2 not a ta'in# d. &"e ,i#"t to Dispose 1* Includes ri#"t to devise or descent 7. &"e ;nd +t"erwise =ustifies t"e >eans W"en t"e Value to t"e Public of t"e ;nd +utwei#"s t"e Private 9arm +ccasioned by t"e >eans a. Govt may destroy nonessential property ri#"ts w(o payment of compensation 1* ;specially if owner also benefited from re#ulation %* Public nuisance ;/ception! -'eystone* ! #ovt may pro"ibit a use deemed by le#islature to be in)urious to public "ealt". safety. morals. or #eneral welfare. if t"e re#ulation does not permanently destroy an essential property ri#"t. -not a ta'in#* 6* 0ut if not no/ious use. must #o to balancin# test - sufficient interference wit" owners ri#"ts. and insufficient public interest 7* 0alancin# test! re#ulatory ta'in# "as occurred w"en t"e balance of certain factors are overw"elmin#ly in favor of t"e private interest a* ;conomic impact on claimant b* Interference wit" investment@bac'ed e/pectations c* 8"aracter of t"e #overnmental action d* ,eciprocity of advanta#e B* If. on balance. a ta'in# occurred. #ovt can a* Validate re#ulation by payment b* ,escind t"e re#ulation b. &emporary p"ysical occupation 1* Cirst ;n#lis"! a re#ulation w"ic" would ta'e property if permitted to remain in effect permanently ta'es property even if in effect only temporarily. a* Govt cant unta'e property ri#"ts simply by movin# out %* w"et"er re#ulation would be permanent. but ruled invalidD very different Auestion from w"et"er would be a ta'in# if allowed to continue indefinitely a* temporary ta'in# s"ould be found only if temporarily destroys ri#"ts to e/clude. use. A1D dispose. b* Invalidation also affects balance 2 even if rendered wort"less for very s"ort period of time. maybe no ta'in# if invalidation restores investment@bac'ed e/pectations -would render "arm de minimis B. Distin#uis"in# liability from ,emedy a. <oretto! >ay find ta'in# wit" permanent p"ysical invasion. even t"ou#" no "arm 2 find ta'in# at liability sta#e. but no "arm at remedy sta#e. &"ere. dont "ave to loo' at de#ree of "arm to decide "arm because decided before t"e balancin# test. b. 8ompare wit" Penn! #et all t"e way to balancin# sta#e. since re#ulatory. so "ave to consider de#ree of "arm at t"e liability state 2 t"us. no ta'in# b(c "arm is so small. and never even consider remedy. c. &"e Auestion of liability is not driven by t"e de#ree of "arm suffered by a landowner sub)ect to #ovt re#ulation. De#ree of "arm not even relevant until t"e balancin# state. 0. &"e ,emedy P"ase 1. Simple invalidity a. Govt may not validate its arbitrary action by payin# for it b. Dama#es! for deprivation of property in violation of due process! may include loss of profit. loss of potential sales %. Invalidity absent compensation a. If #ovt continues. must pay )ust compensation