Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Dissenting opinion notwithstanding, the provisions of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses of the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were upheld by the Supreme Court as immutable rules which ensured that property could not be taken without fair market compensation. In this instance, Lucas's property was not physically taken but because it was rendered valueless, Lucas was entitled to compensation. South Carolina thus failed in its ambition to avoid reimbursement by characterizing actions as a restriction of "public nuisances" to prevent "noxious uses of property." The majority opinion held that takings of property, even if regulatory, must be compensated and that payment could not be avoided even if the state recognized, in some circumstances, that there existed a need to prevent "public harm" or support a public need to preserve the natural environment. In weighing private and public interests in this issue, economic loss (private property rendered idle) could not be justified even if the government found sufficient interest to prohibit activities or specific kinds of use of private land. The Court summarily held that the Takings Clause (of the Fifth Amendment) could not be lawfully applied without the payment of just compensation.