The Endangered Species Act and Constitutional Takings

18 pages. Contains references

The Endangered Species Act and Constitutional Takings

18 pages. Contains references

Property Rights "Takings": Justice O'Connor's Opinions

When Justice O’Connor ascended to the Supreme Court, expectations were that she would adhere to the conservative line and generally uphold the property rights position over the government’s in Fifth Amendment “takings” cases. This did not happen. Instead, in this area as well as others, she established her place at the Court’s ideological center. To be sure, Justice O’Connor made many arguments favoring property owners, in both her opinions and her concurrences and dissents. But this asserted empathy for the property owner did not translate into espousal of bold doctrinal shifts in takings law. Rather she preferred an ad hoc case-by-case approach, as embodied in the Penn Central test for regulatory takings, whose current dominance she helped to establish. The remainder of the report reviews her takings-related writings for the Court

"Innocent Landowners" and "Prospective Purchasers" in the Superfund Act

The Superfund Act contains several devices that eliminate the liability or reduce the transaction costs normally incurred under the Act by persons that acquire contaminated land. This report focuses on three of them, two addressed in the recently enacted brownfields law (P.L. 107-118). The first device is the innocent-landowner defense, available to persons who acquire land after the hazardous substance is put there, and who (among other things) find no contamination before acquisition despite “all appropriate inquiry.” The second device allows use of innocent-landowner status as a basis for early de minimis settlement with EPA. The third exempts the “bona fide prospective purchaser” from “owner” and “operator” liability despite pre-acquisition awareness of contamination on the property, if certain conditions are met

The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights "Takings"

This report first outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act’s impacts on private property, and then surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The report then proceeds to its core topic: the court decisions adjudicating whether government measures based on the ESA effect a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases address four kinds of ESA measures: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened; (2) reductions in water delivery to preserve lake levels or instream flows needed by listed fish; (3) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (4) restrictions on commercial dealings in members of listed species

Climate Change and Existing Law: A Survey of Legal Issues Past, Present, and Future

This report surveys existing law for legal issues that have arisen, or may arise in the future, on account of climate change and government responses thereto. These include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, liability for harms caused by climate change, water shortages, sea level rise, natural disasters, and how immigration/refugee law does not cover relocation due to climate change impacts

"Property Rights" Bills Take a Process Approach: H.R. 992 and H.R. 1534

In the 105th Congress, the property rights agenda has shifted from "compensation" to "process" bills. While the former would ease the standards for when property owners harmed by government action are compensated, the new approach simply streamlines how federal courts handle such claims. This report examines the three leading process bills -- H.R. 992, House-passed H.R. 1534, and Senate-reported H.R. 1534. The bills embody two process approaches: allowing property owners suing the United States to bring invalidation and compensation claims in the same court, and lowering abstention and ripeness barriers when suing local governments in federal court for property rights violations

Delegation of the Federal Power of Eminent Domain to Nonfederal Entities

Congress has on several occasions delegated its power of eminent domain to entities outside the federal government -- public and private corporations, interstate compact agencies, state and local governments, and even individuals. The constitutionality of such delegation, and of the exercise of such power by even private delegates, is today beyond dispute. However, among delegates with both federal and private characteristics, there is some subjectivity to deciding which to list in a report limited to "nonfederal entities." For delegatees of federal eminent domain power listed here, delegations since 1920 have primarily been to Amtrak, hydroelectric facilities (for dams and reservoirs), and entities engaged in the movement of electricity, gas, and petroleum (the last one expired), and for interstate bridges

The Environmental Opinions of Judge Samuel Alito

This report is based on a review of all the reported environmental decisions of the Third Circuit in which Judge Alito was on the three-judge panel that initially decided the case, or in the en banc group of judges that heard the case on review of the panel decision. It does not confine itself, as did the recently reported Washington Post study, to Third Circuit opinions in which there was a dissent.2 We construe “environmental” broadly to include insurance coverage, Fourth Amendment, and other issues arising in an environmental context — and included 34 decisions in our review

The Liability Exemptions in the Senate Brownfields Bill (S. 350)

This report deals solely with the liability provisions of S. 350, found in Title II of the bill. (The manager’s amendment does not concern these.) These provisions cover three types of innocent parties: (1) owners of properties contaminated from contiguous properties, (2) prospective purchasers, and (3) innocent landowners