Stop Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The Court ruled that Florida's beach-restoration program, and the Florida Supreme Court's decision approving it, did not take beachfront owners' property without compensation, because the owners never had an established right to keep their land in continuous contact with the water once the State filled in the submerged land next to it.
Four justices went further, reasoning that a court's decision can itself count as an unconstitutional taking if it wipes out an established property right — but that view did not command a majority, so whether 'judicial takings' exist as a distinct constitutional wrong remains unresolved.
“The Takings Clause only protects property rights as they are established under state law, not as they might have been established or ought to have been established.”
Explaining why the beachfront owners could not show a taking of a right Florida law never actually gave them.
How it got here: A Florida appeals court sided partly with the beachfront owners; the Florida Supreme Court reversed and ruled for the State; the owners' group sought Supreme Court review of that state-court ruling itself.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Florida holds title to submerged land and the shore up to the mean high-water line. A nonprofit formed by beachfront owners near Destin and Walton County challenged a state beach-restoration project that pumped sand onto eroded beaches, adding about 75 feet of new dry land and creating a fixed boundary line. The owners argued the project and a state court ruling stripped them of long-recognized rights to future additions of sand (accretions) and to having their land always touch the water.
The question before the Court
When Florida pumped sand onto eroded beaches and drew a new fixed property line, did the state supreme court's ruling on beachfront owners' rights amount to the government taking their property without paying for it?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Florida's beach-restoration project and the Florida Supreme Court's decision approving it did not take the beachfront owners' property without compensation. Under Florida law, when land is suddenly added next to the shore (an avulsion) rather than added gradually, that new land belongs to the State, even if it cuts the private owner off from direct contact with the water. Because the State's filling of its own submerged land was treated the same way, the owners never had an established right to future sand additions or continuous water contact that the State's action could take away.
Separately, four justices reasoned that a court decision could itself count as a taking if it eliminates an established property right, but that view fell one vote short of a majority, so the Court left open whether 'judicial takings' are a real category of Takings Clause violations.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Beachfront owners in Florida and elsewhere learned that when a state legally fills in submerged land next to their property to rebuild eroded beaches, they aren't automatically owed compensation for losing direct contact with the water. The case also put on the table, without resolving it, whether property owners could ever sue over a state court ruling that redefines their property rights.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, so the Florida Supreme Court's approval of the beach-restoration permits stands and the project can proceed. Because no five justices agreed on whether a judicial decision can itself constitute an unconstitutional taking, that broader question remains open for future cases to resolve, as both the Kennedy and Breyer concurrences explicitly noted.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether, or under what test, a court ruling can itself count as an unconstitutional taking of property. Only four justices endorsed that theory; the other four justices who agreed with the outcome explicitly declined to reach that question, leaving the concept of 'judicial takings' unresolved.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence in part — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy agreed the beachfront owners suffered no unconstitutional taking, but refused to decide whether or when a judicial decision can violate the Takings Clause. He argued courts, unlike legislatures and agencies, aren't designed to make policy choices about property, so due process principles — not the Takings Clause — are the better tool to police judicial overreach into property rights, and that recognizing a 'judicial takings' doctrine could actually give courts more power, not less.
Concurrence in part — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer agreed no taking occurred but declined to join the plurality's discussion of whether courts can commit takings at all, calling that question unnecessary to decide here. He warned that resolving it prematurely could flood federal courts with takings claims challenging ordinary state property-law rulings, and urged the Court to decide only what the case required.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court asked whether, before the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, beachfront owners already had an established property right to future sand accretions and to constant contact with the water that was superior to the State's right to fill in its own submerged land.
- Under longstanding Florida property law, when land is added suddenly by an avulsion (a sudden change, as opposed to gradual accretion), the new land belongs to whoever owned the seabed — usually the State — even if that cuts off the private owner's contact with the water.
- The Court found that Florida law already treated the State's own act of filling in submerged land the same way it treated a natural avulsion, meaning the private right to future accretions was always subordinate to the State's right to fill its own seabed.
- Because the beachfront owners could not show they had ever possessed a stronger, established right to accretions or water contact than the State's recognized right to fill, the Florida Supreme Court's ruling did not eliminate any real property right — it simply applied and clarified existing law.
- Four justices, in a separate portion of the opinion, reasoned further that the Takings Clause applies no matter which branch of government does the taking, so a court that eliminates an established property right would itself commit a taking — but only four justices joined that reasoning, so it did not become the law of the case.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Sand Key (512 So. 2d 934)
The Court said this earlier Florida ruling about artificial accretions did not apply to the different situation of state-caused avulsion here.