Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
560 U.S. 702 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court decision that interprets and applies existing state property law does not constitute a judicial taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment if the decision does not eliminate a clearly established property right. State-caused avulsions, like beach restoration projects, do not entitle littoral owners to the newly created land if background principles of state law grant the state title to such land.
Facts:
- Under Florida common law, owners of littoral (beachfront) property held certain rights, including the right to receive accretions (gradual additions of land) and the right for their property to maintain contact with the water.
- Florida enacted the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, which authorized state-funded beach restoration projects to combat erosion.
- The Act provides for the establishment of a fixed 'erosion-control line' (ECL) that replaces the fluctuating mean high-water line as the boundary between private littoral property and state-owned submerged lands.
- After the ECL is established and new land is added seaward of it through a restoration project, any subsequent accretions belong to the state, not the littoral landowner.
- The City of Destín and Walton County initiated a project to restore 6.9 miles of beach by dredging sand and depositing it along the shore, creating approximately 75 feet of new dry land seaward of the existing mean high-water line.
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., a nonprofit representing affected beachfront property owners, argued that this project and the establishment of the ECL would extinguish their common-law property rights to accretions and contact with the water.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Destín and Walton County applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for permits to conduct a beach restoration project.
- The Department issued a notice of intent to award the permits, and the Board of Trustees approved the project's erosion-control line.
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. brought an administrative challenge to the project, which was unsuccessful.
- Petitioner then challenged the Department's final order in the Florida District Court of Appeal for the First District, an intermediate appellate court.
- The District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Petitioner, setting aside the Department's order on the grounds that it unconstitutionally eliminated littoral rights.
- The District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the Act's constitutionality to the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted the case, held the Act was not unconstitutional, and quashed the decision of the District Court of Appeal.
- Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing for the first time that the court's decision itself constituted a taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution; the petition was denied.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a decision by a state's highest court, which holds that littoral property owners do not have a right to future accretions or to have their property touch the water after a state-sponsored beach restoration project fills submerged lands, constitute a judicial taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. The Florida Supreme Court's decision did not constitute a judicial taking because it did not eliminate an established property right. The court's ruling was consistent with background principles of Florida law, which distinguish between accretion (gradual deposits of land, which belong to the littoral owner) and avulsion (sudden changes in the shoreline). The state's beach restoration project qualifies as an avulsion. Under Florida law, the state owns the seabed and has the right to fill it; land created by a state-caused avulsion belongs to the state. Therefore, the littoral owners' right to accretions was always subordinate to the state's right to fill its submerged lands, and no established property right was taken.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. The Court should not decide the difficult constitutional question of whether a judicial taking can occur because this case can be resolved on narrower grounds. The Due Process Clause, which guards against arbitrary or irrational government action, is a more appropriate framework for analyzing claims that a court has improperly eliminated established property rights. Creating a judicial takings doctrine could have perverse effects, such as empowering courts to enact sweeping changes to property law with the understanding that the state would simply have to pay just compensation, a role traditionally reserved for the political branches.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. This case does not require the Court to determine whether, or under what standard, a judicial decision can constitute a taking. Adhering to principles of judicial restraint, the Court should resolve the case by simply concluding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision did not amount to a taking, without establishing a broad new constitutional rule. Deciding the larger question would unnecessarily invite a host of federal takings claims involving complex state property law issues, which are better left to state courts.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its extensive discussion of the 'judicial takings' doctrine, which posits that a judicial decision itself can be a taking. Although a majority of the Court did not agree on a single standard, Justice Scalia's plurality opinion laid out a potential framework: a judicial taking occurs when a court declares that what was an 'established' property right no longer exists. This has opened the door to future litigation on the issue, though the concurring opinions highlight the profound theoretical and practical difficulties of applying the Takings Clause to the judiciary. The decision underscores the deference federal courts give to state courts on the substance of state property law, finding no taking where a state court's decision is consistent with its own 'background principles.'
Unlock the full brief for Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection