Scranton v. Wheeler

Background

A waterfront landowner (Gilmore G. Scranton) owned land fronting the St. Mary’s River and sued after a pier built by agents of the United States in the river cut off his direct access from his land to navigable water. The state trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, the state supreme court reviewed the federal questions, and the case reached this Court to decide whether the Constitution requires compensation.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether losing access from private upland to navigable water, solely because the United States built a pier to improve navigation, counts as a taking under the Fifth Amendment that requires just compensation. The majority said Congress has broad authority to regulate and improve navigation for interstate and international commerce. Riparian rights to the water are subject to the public easement of navigation, and an incidental loss of access caused by a lawful navigation improvement is not a constitutional taking. The Court explained that where the government’s work did not physically invade the upland but only resulted in consequential loss of access, compensation was not required, and it affirmed the Michigan court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision leaves in place a rule that federal navigation projects like piers, jetties, or dikes can be built without automatically triggering compensation to adjacent landowners when the work is done to improve navigation and only incidentally impairs private access. Waterfront owners who lose direct landings or wharves because of federally authorized navigation improvements will face a higher hurdle to claim a Constitutional taking.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued riparian access can be private property and that depriving owners of that access may require compensation; the dissent would have reversed the state-court judgment.