Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 221

524US1

Unit: $U81

[09-06-00 20:27:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

176

PHILLIPS v. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION

Souter, J., dissenting

That is not to say, of course, that we should resolve either
the taking or compensation issues here, for the Fifth Circuit
did not address them. Rather, we should determine here
whether either of the remaining issues might reasonably be
resolved against respondents; if so, we should not abstract
the property issue for resolution in their favor now, but
should return the case to the Court of Appeals to consider
all three issues before resolving the ﬁrst. Sufﬁce it to say
that both the taking and compensation questions are serious
ones for respondents.

First, as to a taking, we start with Penn Central Transp.
Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978), and its guidance
about certain sorts of facts that are of particular importance
in what is supposed to be an “ad hoc, factual” enquiry, id.,
at 124, into whether the government has “go[ne] too far.”
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922).
Attention should be paid to the nature of the government’s
action, its economic impact, and the degree of any inter-
ference with reasonable,
investment-backed expectations.
Penn Central, supra, at 124. Here it is enough to note the
possible signiﬁcance of the facts that there is no physical
occupation or seizure of tangible property, cf. Loretto v. Tele-
prompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982)
(noting that physical intrusion is “unusually serious” in the
takings context); that there is no apparent economic im-
pact (since the client would have no net interest to go in his
pocket, IOLTA or no IOLTA); and that the facts present
neither anything resembling an investment nor (for the rea-
son just given) any apparent basis for reasonably expecting
to obtain net interest. While a court would certainly con-
sider any proposal that respondents might make for a depar-
ture from the Penn Central approach to vindicating the Fifth
Amendment in these circumstances, application of Penn Cen-
tral would not bode well for claimants like respondents.

Second, as to the just compensation requirement, the
client’s inability to earn net interest outside IOLTA, due to