Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 601.0

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:39] PAGES PGT: OPLG

556

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Breyer, J., dissenting

taking occurs “whenever legislation requires one person to
Id., at 223.
use his or her assets for the beneﬁt of another.”
The second case basically followed the analysis of the ﬁrst
case. Concrete Pipe, 508 U. S., at 641–647. And both cases
rejected the claim of a Takings Clause violation.
Id., at 646–
647; Connolly, supra, at 227–228.

The dearth of Takings Clause authority is not surprising,
for application of the Takings Clause here bristles with con-
If the Clause applies when the govern-
ceptual difﬁculties.
ment simply orders A to pay B, why does it not apply when
the government simply orders A to pay the government, i. e.,
when it assesses a tax? Cf. In re Leckie Smokeless Coal
Co., 99 F. 3d 573, 583 (CA4 1996) (characterizing “reachback”
liability payments as a “tax”), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1118
(1997); In re Chateaugay Corp., 53 F. 3d 478, 498 (CA2 1995)
(same), cert. denied sub nom. LTV Steel Co., Inc. v. Shalala,
516 U. S. 913 (1995). Would that Clause apply to some or to
all statutes and rules that “routinely creat[e] burdens for
some that directly beneﬁt others”? Connolly, supra, at 223.
Regardless, could a court apply the same kind of Takings
Clause analysis when violation means the law’s invalidation,
rather than simply the payment of “compensation?” See
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 315 (1987) (“[The Tak-
ings Clause] is designed not to limit the governmental inter-
ference with property rights per se, but rather to secure
compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference
amounting to a taking”).

We need not face these difﬁculties, however, for there is
no need to torture the Takings Clause to ﬁt this case. The
question involved—the potential unfairness of retroactive
liability—ﬁnds a natural home in the Due Process Clause,
a Fifth Amendment neighbor. That Clause says that no
person shall be “deprive[d] . . . of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1.
It
safeguards citizens from arbitrary or irrational legislation.