Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
"Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council" is a significant legal case that revolves around property rights and government regulation. In 1986, David Lucas purchased two oceanfront lots in South Carolina with plans to build homes. However, in 1988, a new state law prohibited him from constructing permanent structures on his land, leading Lucas to argue that this restriction amounted to a "taking" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which would entitle him to compensation. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in a 6-3 decision that the state courts needed to assess whether Lucas had been deprived of all economically viable use of his property.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the government must demonstrate more than just public interest to justify such regulations. He clarified that the takings clause applies specifically to instances where property owners lose all economic value of their land, which means that many land-use and environmental regulations may not fall under this protective umbrella. This case is pivotal in understanding the balance between individual property rights and governmental authority in land use, reflecting broader themes of economic viability and regulatory impact.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Date: June 29, 1992
Citation: 505 U.S. 647
Issue: Takings clause
Significance: The Supreme Court held that when land-use and environmental regulations deprive property owners of the total value of their land, the owners have a takings clause claim unless the governmental authority can defend the regulations as necessary to prevent a public harm or nuisance.
In 1986 David Lucas purchased two oceanfront parcels on the Isle of Palms with the intention of constructing single-unit residences. In 1988, however, the state legislature enacted a statute that barred Lucas from erecting permanent structures on his parcels. Lucas filed suit, contending that the ban on construction deprived him of all “economically viable use” of his property and therefore constituted a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring payment of just compensation. The state’s highest court, relying on Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987), ruled in favor of the state.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the state courts to decide whether Lucas had been deprived of all the economic value of his property and whether the building restriction had been designed to prevent a “harmful or noxious use” of the land. Speaking for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the government had to do more than simply show that the regulation was in the “public interest.” At the same time, Scalia held that the takings clause applies only to situations in which property owners are deprived of all the economic value of their property. Because most land-use and environmental regulations do not deprive property owners of all economic value, the Lucas decision does not protect many property owners.