No Murr Tests: Penn Central is Enough Already!
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Author’s synopsis: In Murr v. Wisconsin, 1 the United States Supreme Court articulated a new Fifth Amendment takings test. The new test muddies the turbid waters of the Takings Clause by creating an additional threshold for property owners, who must now define the relevant property interest prior to proving that government action has “taken” private property. The Court could have reached the same result without resorting to a new test and creating further confusion. Prior cases defined the “relevant parcel” in terms of state law and the three Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City factors: the character of the government action, diminution in value, and the economic impact to the landowner. Murr departs from that existing law and creates a new threshold that lessens the import of state-specific property law. This new test complicates and elongates the takings claim process. It may make it more difficult for property owners and well-meaning government agencies to identify a valid takings claim. In the interests of fairness, predictability, and federalism, courts should defer to local and state laws in determining the parameters of the “relevant parcel.” The state laws affecting property rights are inseparable from reasonable investment-backed expectations. Penn Central should guide “relevant parcel” cases where there is ambiguity in state law or manifest interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations and where there is a significant economic impact—as part of a holistic takings analysis.
Recommended Citation
Timothy Harris,
No Murr Tests: Penn Central is Enough Already!, 30 GEO. ENVTL. L. REV. 605
(2018).
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/973
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/in-print/volume-30-issue-4-fall-2018/