Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Headline: Temporary development moratoria during regional planning do not automatically trigger compensation, the Court affirms, limiting per‑se takings claims and requiring case‑by‑case review under established multi‑factor standards.
Holding: In a one‑sentence plain English holding.
- Treats temporary moratoria as not automatically compensable.
- Allows agencies to use moratoria while planning without per‑se liability.
- Landowners must pursue case‑specific Penn Central takings claims.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the Tahoe‑Sierra Preservation Council, about 2,000 members, and a class of roughly 400 owners of vacant lots who bought land to build homes. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two development moratoria to design a regional plan: Ordinance 81‑5 (Aug. 24, 1981–Aug. 26, 1983) and Resolution 83‑21 (Aug. 27, 1983–Apr. 25, 1984), which together froze most building on sensitive areas for 32 months. The District Court found a categorical taking under Lucas and awarded damages; the Ninth Circuit rejected that rule on its face.
Reasoning
The Court framed the central question as whether a temporary moratorium automatically requires compensation. It emphasized the difference between physical appropriation and regulation and explained Lucas’ categorical rule applies only to extraordinary permanent deprivations of all economic use. The Court held that treating a time‑limited “slice” of a fee as a separate parcel was legally incorrect and that the Penn Central multi‑factor test should govern these regulatory‑takings claims. The Court declined to adopt any new per‑se rule tied to moratorium length and noted the District Court’s factual findings that TRPA acted in good faith.
Real world impact
The ruling allows planning agencies to use temporary moratoria without automatic liability, while preserving landowners’ ability to bring case‑specific takings claims under Penn Central. The decision leaves open merits challenges to later plans and does not foreclose recovery in cases of bad faith or different facts.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) argued the combined restraints, including the post‑1984 injunction, produced an almost six‑year deprivation and that Lucas and First English require compensation.
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?