Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach
Headline: Beachfront owners’ challenge to Oregon’s public-use rule blocked as the Court declines to hear the case, despite a dissent warning of major takings and due process problems for coastal property owners.
Holding:
- Leaves state court ruling that limits beachfront owners’ right to exclude the public in place.
- Blocks immediate federal review of takings and due process challenges by coastal property owners.
- Signals potential impact along Oregon coast if state custom doctrine is enforced.
Summary
Background
The landowners are people who bought a beachfront lot in 1957 in Cannon Beach. In 1989 they sought a permit to build a seawall on the dry-sand part of their lot. The city denied the permit. The owners sued the city claiming the denial and related state decisions took their property without compensation and violated due process. State courts dismissed their case relying on an old Oregon rule that the public has recreational rights on dry-sand beaches.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Oregon's so-called doctrine of "custom" already deprived these owners of the right to keep the public off the dry-sand area, so there was nothing left to be taken. The Oregon Supreme Court said that doctrine is a background rule of state property law and affirmed the dismissal. Justice Scalia, dissenting, argued the federal Constitution prevents a state court from declaring property never existed without record support, and he said the factual record is missing to evaluate a taking.
Real world impact
By declining review, the high court left the state-court rulings intact, so the owners cannot immediately pursue federal review. The practical effect is that many beachfront owners in Oregon could remain subject to public-use limits unless a court reopens the factual record. The decision is not a final national ruling on takings rights and may change if a court allows a full factual hearing.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia (joined by Justice O'Connor) would have taken the case on the due process claim. He warned that Oregon courts have wavered about how much of the coast the custom covers and urged giving the owners a chance to present facts.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?