Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 586

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

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

541

Opinion of Kennedy, J.

regulatory takings concept has assumed in our law, it is fair
to say it has proved difﬁcult to explain in theory and to im-
plement in practice. Cases attempting to decide when a
regulation becomes a taking are among the most litigated
and perplexing in current law. See Penn Central Transp.
Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123 (1978) (“The question
of what constitutes a ‘taking’ for purposes of the Fifth
Amendment has proved to be a problem of considerable dif-
ﬁculty”); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 175
(1979) (the regulatory taking question requires an “essen-
tially ad hoc, factual inquir[y]”).

Until today, however, one constant limitation has been that
in all of the cases where the regulatory taking analysis has
been employed, a speciﬁc property right or interest has been
at stake. After the decision in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v.
Mahon, supra, we confronted cases where speciﬁc and identi-
ﬁed properties or property rights were alleged to come
within the regulatory takings prohibition: air rights for
high-rise buildings, Penn Central, supra; zoning on parcels
of real property, e. g., MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo
County, 477 U. S. 340 (1986); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447
U. S. 255 (1980); trade secrets, Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
467 U. S. 986 (1984); right of access to property, e. g., Prune-
Yard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980); Kaiser
Aetna, supra; right to afﬁx on structures, Loretto v. Tele-
prompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982); right
to transfer property by devise or intestacy, e. g., Hodel v.
Irving, 481 U. S. 704 (1987); creation of an easement, Dolan
v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994); Nollan v. California
Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987); right to build or im-
prove, Lucas, supra; liens on real property, Armstrong v.
United States, 364 U. S. 40 (1960); right to mine coal, Key-
stone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470
(1987); right to sell personal property, Andrus v. Allard, 444
U. S. 51 (1979); and the right to extract mineral deposits,
Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590 (1962); United States