7/28/2019 Legal Brief of David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council

1/1

David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

US Supreme Court

Parties: Plaintiff: David H. LucasDefendant: South Carolina Costal Council

Facts: In 1986 developer David H. Lucas purchased to lots on a barrier island inSouth Carolina, which were zoned single family residential, with the intention of developing thelots. However in 1988 the state of South Carolina institute the Beachfront Management Act(BMA), which established new baselines on the coastal barrier islands. The BMA prohibited any

property development of occupable improvements seaward of a line parallel to and 20 feetlandward of the baseline, thus prohibiting Mr. Lucas proposed development and therebydepriving the developer of any reasonable economic use of the property, rendering it valueless.

Legal Issue: Does the state of South Carolina through the Beachfront ManagementAct have the right to ban developers from all viable economic use without providing justcompensation? This ban of development would therefore would be effected a taking as stated inthe under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments thus providing just compensation to thedevelopers.

Holding: In an opinion by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, OConnor, andThomas, the supreme court held that South Carolina court held to have applied wrong standard indetermining whether state beachfront management statute, by barring construction, effected"taking" of property under Fifth Amendment. The Court thus reverses the decision of SupremeCourt of South Carolina in favor Mr. Lucas.

Rational: Where a state seeks to sustain a regulation that deprives land of alleconomically beneficial use, the state may resist an asserted right to compensation under thetakings clause, on the theory that there has been no "taking," only if the logically antecedent

inquiry into the nature of the owner's estate shows that the proscribed use interests were not partof the owner's title to begin with, so that the severe limitation on property use is not newlylegislated or decreed, but inheres in the title itself through the restrictions that background

principles of the state's law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.

Critical Analysis:This case is one that centers on the idea of managing the development of beachfront

properties and who has the control of the development. Many states along the Atlantic coastalseaboard are constantly barraged with costal storms every year causing billions of dollars in

property damage, epically on the small barrier islands, which makes up many coastlines. Thestate of South Carolina, in hoping to possibly curtail additional development on its coastal

beachfronts imposed the BMA. But the imposing of this act leads to the question of taking and

just compensation as stated in the Constitution. Considering that many beachfront properties areconsidered high value areas does the state have the authority to come in and render a property thatwas once developable land non developable without compensation the owner of the property

justly, even though the state is not purchasing the property for the idea of beachfrontmanagement, but of instead preventing the owner of reasonable economic use of the property thathad previously determined by changing the abilities of the property, with no compensation to theowner.