Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
2002 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.[1]
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | |
---|---|
Argued January 7, 2002 Decided April 23, 2002 | |
Full case name | Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Incorporated, et al. v. Tahoe-Regional Planning Agency, et al. |
Citations | 535 U.S. 302 (more) 122 S. Ct. 1465; 152 L. Ed. 2d 517; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3028; 70 U.S.L.W. 4260; 54 ERC (BNA) 1129; 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3495; 32 ELR 20627; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiff, 34 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Nev. 1999), reversed, 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 533 U.S. 948 (2001). |
Holding | |
The moratorium did not constitute a taking. There was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation is required. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas |
Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV |