Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court held 4/23/02, 6-3, that a temporary moratorium on development of land surrounding Lake Tahoe was not a per se taking and, therefore, that any taking claim arising from the moratorium must be analyzed under the Court’s Penn Central test. To address concerns that development was causing Lake Tahoe to lose its legendary clarity, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed a temporary moratorium on building around the Lake. The Court rejected the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council’s argument that the moratorium deprived landowners of all economic use of the land, which would result in a per se taking under the Court’s Lucas decision. In so ruling, the Court focused on the temporary nature of the moratorium, noting that governments frequently delay access to, or use of, property in a variety of contexts including building permits, zoning ordinances, and orders that enforce health codes. Analysis of the temporary taking in this case required evaluation of all the relevant circumstances under the Penn Central analysis, rather than application of a categorical rule. The dissenters (Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) would have held that the moratorium deprived landowners of the entire value of their property and thus required compensation. This case is important to all businesses that deal with land use regulation matters and further defines the Court’s approach to takings clause cases, particularly its increased reliance on the Penn Central test.