1. David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council U.S. Supreme Court 505 U.S. 1003 June 29, 1992

2. Background 1972: Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 1977: South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act Based on federal Act to require permits to be obtained before development in “critical areas” along beachfronts Late 70’s: Lucas and others developed Isle of Palms 1986: Lucas purchased two lots in Beachwood East Subdivision for $975,000 1988: Beachfront Management Act Construction of habitable improvements was prohibited seaward of a line drawn 20 ft. landward and parallel to the baseline.

3. Background

4. Merrick Road Lot 1 Lucas Lot Beach Line 1986 Beach Line 1956 Beach Line 1902 Lucas v Carolina Coastal Commission

5. Controversy Lucas bought two beachfront lots zoned for single-family residential development in 1986 with no restrictions imposed upon the use of the property by the state, county, or town In 1988, the Beachfront Management Act made a permanent ban on construction on Lucas’s lots

6. Trial Court Lucas contended that the construction of the Beachfront Management Act caused a taking of his property without just compensation The Trial Court agreed and found that the Act “deprived Lucas of any reasonable economic use of the lots,…eliminated the unrestricted right of use, and rendered them valueless”

7. Change in Beachfront Management Act In 1990, while the issue was in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court and before issuance of the court’s opinion, the Act was amended to allow for special permits to be issued The State Supreme Court determined that that case was unripe

8. Supreme Court of South Carolina The State Supreme Court reversed the decision The court’s reasoning was that “when a regulation respecting the use of property is designed to prevent serious public harm, no compensation is owing under the Takings Clause regardless of the regulation’s effect on the property’s value”

9. Dissent of State Supreme Court Two justices dissented because “they would not have characterized the Beachfront Management Act’s primary purpose as the prevention of a nuisance” “To the dissenters, the chief purposes of the legislation, among them the promotion of tourism and the creation of a habitat for indigenous flora and fauna, could not fairly be compared to nuisance abatement”

10. US Supreme Court Prior decision was overturned based on two principles: The court decided that the case was ripe because it was filed before the amendment to the Act in 1990 The State Supreme Court erred in applying the noxious uses principle Tie in to previous case law In Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 413, “if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits”

11. Reasoning Lucas sacrificed all economically beneficial uses in the name of common good, so it is a categorical taking Creating a distinction between regulation that prevents “harmful uses” and that which “confers benefits” is next to impossible Background principles of nuisance and property law must be defined

12. Kelo v. New London (2005)