Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Lingle, Etc.: The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Takings Trilogy

September 2005

Citation: ELR 10577

Author: John D. Echeverria

Editors' Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on three takings cases in its 2004 term: Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Kelo v. City of New London; and San Remo Hotel, Ltd. Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco. In Lingle, the Court struck down the "substantially advance" test set forth in Agins v. City of Tiburon. Kelo, which gained attention from the media and public, upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. And San Remo involved a relatively straightforward procedural issue. After describing and analyzing each of these cases, the author of this Article concludes that these cases reinforce the Court's takings jurisprudence that the Takings Clause imposes only modest constraints on government action.

 

John D. Echeverria is the Executive Director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, which conducts research and education on legal and policy issues relating to protection of the environment and conservation of natural resources. Mr. Echeverria is a graduate of the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and formerly served as General Counsel and Conservation Director of American Rivers and as General Counsel of the National Audubon Society. He has written extensively on the regulatory takings issue and other environmental law topics.

You must be a News & Analysis subscriber to download the full article.

You are not logged in. To access this content: