| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | HI enacts a law that limits the amount of rent that an oil company can charge a lessee-dealer to 15% of gas GP plus 15% of other products. There's some background about ownership of gas stations there-- it's a bit of a unique situation. |
| Posture: | Suit in district court-- cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment granted for Chevron because the act "fails to substantially advance a ligitimate state interest." 9th Cir. vacates summary judgment saying there was a material issue of fact as to whether this would benefit consumers. On remand... judgment for Chevron! 9th Cir. Affirms. Cert granted. |
| Issue: | Is the "substantially advances" test an appropriate identifier of 5A takings? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed. |
| Rule: | The "substantially advances" formula is not a valid takings test. Plaintiffs can allege a physical taking, a Penn Central taking, or a land-use exaction in violation of Nollan and Dolan. |
| Reasoning: | In order to have a taking, there needs to be either an actual
appropriation of property or the functional equivalent. The
"substantially advances" test is really a due process
question, not a takings question: it asks whether the means
are justified by the ends.
The other regulatory takings tests don't work like that: the magnitude or the character of the taking are irrelevant. A test that tells us nothing about the actual burden imposed on property rights or how that burden is allocated can't help us determine whether that burden should be spread out among the taxpayers. "Substantially advances" is more about the validity of the underlying regulation than 5A jurisprudence. And anyway, "substantially advances" could be used as an excuse to review virtually any regulation of private property: we are not going to go there. We are not going to resurrect substantive due process challenges to regulation! |
| Dicta: | Kenedy (concurring): still, we might one day run across a regulation that's so arbitrary and irrational as to violate due process-- this shouldn't be read as saying such a thing could never happen. |