Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 600.0

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 498 (1998)

555

Breyer, J., dissenting

main but also certain “takings” through regulation can re-
quire “compensation” under the Clause. See, e. g., Pennsyl-
vania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922) (“[W]hile
property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation
goes too far it will be recognized as a taking”); Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003 (1992)
(land-use regulation that deprives owner of all economically
beneﬁcial use of property constitutes taking); Nollan v. Cali-
fornia Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987) (public ease-
ment across property may constitute taking). But these
precedents concern the taking of
interests in physical
property.

The Court has also made clear that the Clause can apply
to monetary interest generated from a fund into which a pri-
vate individual has paid money. Webb’s Fabulous Pharma-
cies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155 (1980). But the mone-
tary interest at issue there arose out of the operation of a
speciﬁc, separately identiﬁable fund of money. And the gov-
ernment took that interest for itself. Here there is no spe-
ciﬁc fund of money; there is only a general liability; and that
liability runs not to the Government, but to third parties.
Cf., e. g., Armstrong, supra, at 48 (Government destroyed
liens “for its own advantage”); Connolly v. Pension Beneﬁt
Guaranty Corporation, 475 U. S. 211, 225 (1986) (no taking
where “the Government does not physically invade or per-
manently appropriate any . . . assets for its own use” (empha-
sis added)).

The Court in two cases has arguably acted as if the Tak-
ings Clause might apply to the creation of a general liability.
Connolly, supra; Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v.
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508
U. S. 602 (1993). But in the ﬁrst of those cases, the Court
said that the Takings Clause had not been violated, in part
because “the Government does not physically invade or per-
manently appropriate any . . . assets for its own use.” Con-
It also rejected the position that a
nolly, 475 U. S., at 225.