Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
520 U.S. 725, 137 L. Ed. 2d 980, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3233 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's regulatory takings claim is ripe for adjudication once the government agency charged with implementation has made a final determination on the nature and extent of development permitted on the property. The landowner is not required to first attempt to sell transferable development rights (TDRs) before the claim is considered ripe.
Facts:
- In 1972, Bernadine Suitum and her husband purchased an undeveloped residential lot in Washoe County, Nevada, near Lake Tahoe.
- In 1987, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), an interstate body created by Congress, adopted a Regional Plan to protect the Lake Tahoe basin's environment.
- This plan established an Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) that designated certain sensitive lands, including Suitum's property, as Stream Environment Zones (SEZ).
- Under the plan, properties within an SEZ were assigned an IPES score of zero and were ineligible for development.
- The plan created a system of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), which allowed owners of undevelopable land like Suitum to sell these rights to owners of developable parcels elsewhere.
- After securing a 'Residential Allocation' (a type of TDR), Suitum applied to the TRPA for a permit to construct a home on her lot.
- The TRPA denied Suitum's building application, formally determining that her property was located within an SEZ and therefore could not be developed.
- Suitum did not attempt to sell or transfer any of her TDRs after her building permit was denied.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernadine Suitum filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment to TRPA, ruling that Suitum's claim was not ripe for adjudication.
- The District Court reasoned that without Suitum attempting to transfer her TDRs, there was no final decision on how she would be allowed to use her property or the extent of her economic injury.
- Suitum, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the claim was not ripe until Suitum applied to transfer her TDRs.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Suitum's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit'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:
Is a landowner's regulatory takings claim ripe for adjudication when the responsible agency has conclusively denied the owner the right to develop the property, but the owner has not yet attempted to sell the transferable development rights (TDRs) she is entitled to receive under the regulatory scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes, the claim is ripe. A landowner’s regulatory takings claim is ripe for judicial review once the agency makes a final decision regarding the application of its regulations to the property at issue. The 'final decision' requirement of Williamson County is met here because the TRPA has made a definitive determination that no construction will be permitted on Suitum's land; the agency retains no discretion to permit any development. The availability of TDRs does not undermine the finality of that decision, as the question of their value is a component of the just compensation inquiry, not the ripeness inquiry. Requiring Suitum to first market her TDRs is unnecessary, as a court can determine their monetary value through evidence and expert testimony, similar to how market value is established in other legal contexts.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, the claim is ripe. The 'final decision' requirement focuses exclusively on determining the nature and extent of the development legally permitted on the land itself. TDRs are irrelevant to this inquiry because they do not affect the use of the regulated property; rather, they are a form of potential compensation for the restriction. Placing TDRs on the 'takings' side of the analysis, rather than the 'just compensation' side, is a conceptual error that could allow the government to evade its constitutional obligation to pay full compensation for a taking. Because the TRPA has unequivocally forbidden development on Suitum's land, its decision is final, and the claim is ripe, regardless of the existence or value of any TDRs.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'final decision' prong of the ripeness doctrine for regulatory takings claims established in Williamson County. The Court's decision prevents land-use agencies from using transferable development rights or similar compensatory schemes as a procedural barrier to delay litigation indefinitely. By distinguishing the finality of the land-use decision from the process of valuing compensatory rights, the ruling makes it easier for property owners to get their takings claims into court. The concurrence by Justice Scalia further sharpens the distinction, arguing that TDRs should only be considered when calculating just compensation after a taking has already been established, not when determining if a taking has occurred or if the claim is ripe.
