Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon is a significant Supreme Court case that examines the balance between property rights and government regulation. The 1922 decision, delivered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, determined that a Pennsylvania law restricted a coal company's access to its mineral rights, effectively constituting a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that such regulation required just compensation, which had not been provided in this case. Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissented, highlighting the complex interplay between individual property interests and regulatory measures intended to promote public safety. This case set an important precedent regarding the interpretation of the "takings clause," influencing subsequent legal discussions about property rights and governmental authority. Although later cases, such as Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, addressed these issues, questions regarding the extent and definition of regulatory takings remain a topic of ongoing legal debate. This case is often referenced in discussions about land use, environmental regulation, and the rights of property owners.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Date: December 11, 1922
Citation: 260 U.S. 393
Issue: Takings
Significance: The Supreme Court first held that a regulation regarding land use may constitute a taking.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion for the 8-1 majority. Holmes ruled that a Pennsylvania statute regulated land to such an extent that a coal company could not access the coal deposit for which it owned the mineral rights. The Supreme Court held that the regulation was a taking for which just compensation had not been offered. Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissented. Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987) seems to modify Pennsylvania Coal, but neither holding determined exactly when such a regulation became a taking, and the controversy continued.
