In Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Florida Supreme Court had violated a group of littoral property owners’ Fifth Amendment rights–or committed a ”judicial taking”- by upholding the state of Florida’s Beach and Shore Preservation Act. Under the Act, the State is entitled to ownership of previously submerged land it restores as beach; this is true even though the normal private/state property line, the mean-high water line, is moved seaward, and the affected littoral owner(s) lose their right to have their property abut the water. Although a four-justice plurality led by Justice Scalia held that that the Florida Supreme Court did not violate the Fifth Amendment in this instance, the plurality did recognize this it is unconstitutional for any branch of state government to declare that what was once an established private property right no longer exists. In so doing, the plurality appears to endorse a judicial takings doctrine. This case note explores the institutional and policy ramifications of such a doctrine-ultimately concluding that the due process analysis advocated by Justice Kennedy in concurrence is a better doctrinal mechanism to corral wayward judges. After exploring the procedural and federalism concerns raised by a judicial takings doctrine, the note hypothesizes the viewpoints of several famous deceased takings scholars. The note then evaluates the position of living taking scholars Eduardo M. Penalver and Lihor Strahilevitz, whom propose a flexible approach that considers Takings Clause and due process analysis on a case-by-case basis.
Mackesey, Brendan Esq., "Stop the beach renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection: the dawn of a judicial takings doctrine?" (2013). Internship Reports (Restricted). 183.
For UM Patrons Only