Citation:

Lingle v. Chevron,
125 S. Ct. 2074 (2005).

Summary:
The extent to which a regulation advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to whether the regulation has affected a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Case Details:

The Hawaiian legislature enacted a rent-cap on gasoline stations.  Chevron objected and argued that the legislation affected a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  The district court and circuit court held that the legislation affected a taking because it did not “substantially advance” the state’s interest in controlling consumer gasoline prices.  That is, the rent cap was not effective in controlling gasoline prices.

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court clarified its taking precedent and held that such a “means-end” type analysis, which is typically employed in due process contexts, has no place in takings jurisprudence.  The Court expressly overruled all prior precedent applying such means-ends analysis to the Takings Clause (e.g. Agins).  The Court made it clear, where government regulation has not affected a permanent physical invasion of property (e.g. Loretto); exacted a property interest (e.g. NollanDolan); or rendered a property valueless (e.g. Lucas), the proper and only test to be applied is the one set forth in Penn Central.  Under the Penn Central rule, the focus is on the degree of economic harm the regulation inflicts on the property owner in light of the owner’s reasonable investment backed expectations for the property at the time of purchase.

Disclaimer
No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.