Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 567

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

522

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Opinion of O(cid:146)Connor, J.

ving, 481 U. S. 704, 716–718 (1987). Without addressing the
basis of this Court’s jurisdiction, we have also upheld similar
statutory schemes against Takings Clause challenges. See
Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction La-
borers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U. S. 602, 641–
“While we are
647 (1993); Connolly, 475 U. S., at 221–228.
not bound by previous exercises of jurisdiction in cases in
which our power to act was not questioned but was passed
sub silentio, neither should we disregard the implications of
an exercise of judicial authority assumed to be proper” in
previous cases. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S.
294, 307 (1962) (citations omitted). Based on the nature of
the taking alleged in this case, we conclude that the declara-
tory judgment and injunction sought by petitioner constitute
an appropriate remedy under the circumstances, and that it
is within the district courts’ power to award such equitable
relief.

IV
A
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides:
“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, with-
out just compensation.” The aim of the Clause is to prevent
the government “from forcing some people alone to bear pub-
lic burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne
by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364
U. S. 40, 49 (1960).

This case does not present the “classi[c] taking” in which
the government directly appropriates private property for
its own use. See United States v. Security Industrial
Bank, 459 U. S. 70, 78 (1982). Although takings problems
are more commonly presented when “the interference with
property can be characterized as a physical invasion by gov-
ernment, than when interference arises from some public
program adjusting the beneﬁts and burdens of economic life
to promote the common good,” Penn Central Transp. Co. v.
New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978) (citation omitted),