Minnesota Law Review

The Police Power Revisited: Phantom Incorporation and the Roots of the Takings “Muddle”

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. exposed a deep flaw in regulatory takings doctrine. Lingle rejected the Agins holding that if a regulation does not “substantially advance a legitimate state interest,” it is a compensable taking. That formulation, Lingle said, was based on substantive due process precedents and is better suited to a due process, rather than a takings, inquiry. The confusion is not confined to Agins, however; it pervades contemporary takings doctrine.

This Article traces the “muddle” in takings law to an ill-considered “phantom incorporation” holding in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, which erroneously cited Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (Chicago B & Q) for the holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause applies to the states. In fact, Chicago B & Q was decided strictly on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds, and made no mention of the Fifth Amendment or the Takings Clause. Nor did Chicago B & Q overrule Barron v. Baltimore, which had expressly limited the Takings Clause to the federal government—a precedent the Court would continue to cite as good law until the middle of the twentieth century.

From Chicago B & Q forward, just compensation law proceeded on two independent and parallel tracks: due process constrained the states, while the Takings Clause applied only to the federal government, reflecting basic federalism principles. Property law was state law in the first instance. Every state claimed as a foundational principle of its law that all property was held subject to, and limited by, the state’s police power to regulate to protect the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Due process doctrine held that a valid police power measure could never be a “taking” because property rights simply ended where the police power began. Due process-based takings cases against states—including Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon—turned on the legitimate scope and limits of the police power. The federal government, lacking a general police power, had no comparable defense, and Fifth Amendment takings claims were decided on other grounds.

Penn Central—not Chicago B & Q—was the first Supreme Court case to apply the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause directly to the states. It did so without briefing or analysis of the implications of that holding. Conflating substantive due process and Takings Clause principles and precedents, Penn Central sowed doctrinal confusion, leading to “reverse incorporation” of substantive due process concepts into Takings Clause doctrine, eliminating the states’ police power defense, truncating the role of state law in takings adjudication, and undercutting federalism in our constitutional law of property. This Article urges adjustments in takings doctrine to recognize the police power as a “background principle” of state property law, consistent with historic understandings.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days