Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 588

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

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

543

Opinion of Kennedy, J.

or is transferred to other private parties. See, e. g., United
States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70, 78 (1982)
(“[O]ur cases show that takings analysis is not necessarily
limited to outright acquisitions by the government for it-
self ”); Loretto, supra (transfer of physical space from land-
lords to cable companies).

As the range of governmental conduct subjected to tak-
ings analysis has expanded, however, we have been careful
not to lose sight of the importance of identifying the prop-
erty allegedly taken, lest all governmental action be sub-
jected to examination under the constitutional prohibition
against taking without just compensation, with the attendant
potential for money damages. We have asked how the chal-
lenged governmental action is implemented with particular
emphasis on the extent to which a speciﬁc property right is
affected. See id., at 432 (physical invasion “is a government
action of such a unique character that it is a taking without
regard to other factors”); Hodel, supra, at 715–716 (declar-
ing a law, which otherwise would not be a taking because of
its insigniﬁcant economic impact, a taking because the char-
acter of the governmental action destroyed the right to pass
property to one’s heirs, a right which “has been part of the
Anglo-American legal system since feudal times”); Penn
Central, supra, at 124 (“A ‘taking’ may more readily be
found when the interference with property can be character-
ized as a physical invasion by government, than when inter-
ference arises from some public program adjusting the bene-
ﬁts and burdens of economic life to promote the common
good” (citation omitted)). The Coal Act neither targets a
speciﬁc property interest nor depends upon any particular
property for the operation of its statutory mechanisms. The
liability imposed on Eastern no doubt will reduce its net
worth and its total value, but this can be said of any law
which has an adverse economic effect.

The circumstance that the statute does not take money for
the Government but instead makes it payable to third per-
sons is not a factor I rely upon to show the lack of a taking.