Opinion ID: 594395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Taking

Text: 58 Since we have determined that Mr. Nixon has a compensable property interest in his presidential papers, the question that must follow is whether PRMPA constituted a taking of that property. On this point, the District Court held that, even if Mr. Nixon had a property interest in his presidential papers, there was no taking pursuant to PRMPA. Nixon v. United States, 782 F.Supp. at 642. The District Court reasoned that the American people have an interest in the papers and that, therefore, the government is entitled to exercise some control over the maintenance and disposition of those materials. Id. Thus, the District Court concluded that PRMPA was nothing more than permissible regulation respecting the use of these materials rather than a taking of the property. 59 The District Court's judgment cannot withstand scrutiny. The government has, pursuant to PRMPA, taken complete possession and control of the Nixon papers. Although a great public interest may justify a taking, it does not convert the taking into mere regulation. Here, the few rights that Mr. Nixon retains in the materials are so fractured that his original property interest has been destroyed. Indeed, the rights that have been granted to Mr. Nixon are so modest that they cannot be equated with property. In such a case, we have little difficulty in concluding that PRMPA constitutes a per se taking of Mr. Nixon's property.
60 Where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property, or actually takes title, the Takings Clause requires compensation. Yee v. Escondido, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1526, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3176, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982); National Wildlife Fed'n v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 850 F.2d 694, 706 (D.C.Cir.1988). The rationale for the per se rule is that actual occupation of property obviates an in-depth factual inquiry to determine whether one's economic interests have been sufficiently damaged as to warrant compensation. 61 The Government argues that the per se takings doctrine applies only to the physical occupation of real property. This argument fails for want of authority or logic. First, to support its proposition that the per se takings doctrine does not apply to personal property, the Government reiterates the Supreme Court's oft-repeated admonition that the holding of Loretto is a narrow one. See, e.g., Loretto, 458 U.S. at 441, 102 S.Ct. at 3179; Yee, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1534; FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 251, 107 S.Ct. 1107, 1111, 94 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987). While this is indisputably true, the actual holding of Loretto makes no mention of a distinction between real and personal property, nor was any rationale given in the opinion that might justify such a distinction. See 458 U.S. at 441, 102 S.Ct. at 3179 (Our holding today is very narrow. We affirm the traditional rule that a permanent physical invasion of property is a taking.). Subsequent Supreme Court cases have reaffirmed the per se doctrine without mention of any such distinction. See, e.g., Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. at 252, 107 [298 U.S.App.D.C. 265] S.Ct. at 1112 (defining the category of cases to which the per se doctrine applies as those where a seizure of property involves required acquiescence to a permanent invasion of the property). In short, the narrowness of the Supreme Court's holding in Loretto does not address the Government's contention; it advances that argument not at all. 62 Second, the Government places great emphasis on the fact that the Court has not applied the per se doctrine in a case involving personal property. 32 The Court has in dicta, however, expressly included personal property within the category of property that might be subject to per se taking. See United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52, 62 n. 9, 110 S.Ct. 387, 395 n. 9, 107 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (distinguishing between money, which is not subject to the per se doctrine because it is fungible, and real or personal property). Indeed, in Loretto the Court based the per se takings rationale on a passage from Professor Michelman's seminal article on takings: 63 The one incontestable case for compensation (short of formal expropriation) seems to occur when the government deliberately brings it about that its agents, or the public at large, 'regularly use', or 'permanently' occupy, space or a thing which theretofore was understood to be under private ownership. 64 458 U.S. at 427 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. at 3171 n. 5 (quoting Michelman, supra note 17, at 1184). Under Michelman's construct, thing encompasses any discrete, identifiable (even if incorporeal) vehicle of economic value which one can conceive of as being owned. Michelman, supra note 17, at 1184 n. 37. Hence, the Government's inference that the per se doctrine must be limited to real property is without basis in the law, and we see no reason to give it one. One may be just as permanently and completely dispossessed of personal property as of real property. Any distinction along these lines would be purely artificial.
65 Given that the per se doctrine applies to this type of property, Mr. Nixon argues that PRMPA constitutes a per se taking since the Act has authorized the Archivist of the United States to assume complete possession and control of Mr. Nixon's presidential papers. PRMPA § 101. Moreover, Mr. Nixon points out that PRMPA denies him the power to unilaterally dispose of the materials as he wishes or to exclude others from them. PRMPA §§ 102, 104. The Government counters that the Act did not dispossess Mr. Nixon of the materials, but merely continued a pattern of access that was implemented by Mr. Nixon himself: the materials were left in the White House when Mr. Nixon resigned his Presidency; they were to remain in the custody of the Administrator pursuant to the Nixon-Sampson agreement; there had always been widespread access to them during the Nixon administration; and PRMPA's implementing regulations allow Mr. Nixon supervised access to them as well as the means of objecting to access tentatively granted others by the Archivist. 36 C.F.R. § 1275.26 (1992). Thus, the Government argues, PRMPA does not fundamentally alter Mr. Nixon's interest in the materials and cannot, therefore, constitute a taking. Again, the Government asks this court to indulge in the fantastic. 66 First, the Act unambiguously provides for federal possession of the materials. PRMPA § 101. Although it is true that Mr. Nixon may still view and use the documents, 33 that fact is hardly dispositive. The retention of some access rights by the former owner of property does not preclude the finding of a per se taking. See Lucas, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2895[298 U.S.App.D.C. 266] (taking where owner allowed to keep land, but prohibited from any economic use of the land); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 831-32, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 3146, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987) (taking found where owner granted a building permit for beachfront property conditioned upon the creation of a public easement across the property). The test must be whether the access rights preserve for the former owner the essential economic use of the surrendered property. That is, has the former owner been deprived of a definable unit of economic interests? If so, then it is no answer that he may still stand in some relation to the property. In the present case, the right of access retained by Mr. Nixon is but a thin reed among those associated with the ownership of presidential papers. Although he may still use them, presumably for his own autobiographical and historical work, he has lost all bargaining power with respect to them, not to mention the ability to dispose of them. 67 More importantly, PRMPA has completely abrogated Mr. Nixon's right unilaterally to exclude others from the materials. As the Court has confirmed time and time again, the right to exclude others is perhaps the quintessential property right. Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 176, 100 S.Ct. at 391; Loretto, 458 U.S. at 433, 102 S.Ct. at 3175; Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716, 107 S.Ct. 2076, 2083, 95 L.Ed.2d 668 (1987). Without this right, one's interest in property becomes very tenuous since it is then subject to the whim of others--an interest more akin to a license than to ownership. The Government attempts to circumvent this difficulty by referring us to the widespread access to the materials given to the White House staff during the Nixon administration. The Government reasons that Mr. Nixon cannot be injured by allowing others to view the documents since so many have viewed them in the past. This approach, however, completely misapprehends the distinction between regulation affecting one's relationship to those voluntarily admitted to property versus government action compelling an owner to allow continuous access to third parties. Compare Yee, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1530-31 (regulation of the relationship between landlord and tenants voluntarily admitted to the property not a per se taking) with Loretto, 458 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct. at 3176 (per se taking where landlord required to admit a cable company to her property). In the first case, the owner may terminate the permissive use, thus reclaiming sole dominion over the property. That is not to say that this action will always be costless, but it remains, at least, an option. In the latter case, that option has been taken--the owner can do nothing to avoid the unsolicited invasion. So it is in this case. Mr. Nixon may not prevent any person to whom the Archivist grants access from viewing or using the materials. In this way, he has been deprived of perhaps the paramount property right. 68 The Government persists, though, arguing that, under PRMPA § 104(a)(5) and its implementing regulations, Mr. Nixon has mechanisms available to him to exclude others. Yet, even a cursory review of these sections makes it apparent that they in no way approach the at will power to exclude others that all property owners enjoy and expect. Under the regulations, Mr. Nixon must be given notice and an opportunity to be present at any search of the materials by federal agencies or in connection with judicial process. 36 C.F.R. § 1275.26(d). Moreover, Mr. Nixon must be notified prior to the release of materials to an agency or in connection with judicial proceedings, or prior to the opening of any integral file segment of the materials to public access. 36 C.F.R. § 1275.26(f). If he has any objection to the release based on rights or privileges, Mr. Nixon may file a claim with the Archivist and obtain a temporary stay of the release pending an administrative determination. Id. This determination is subject to judicial review. However, in substance, these privileges are not materially different from the privileges enjoyed by other members of the public with respect to these same materials. See 36 C.F.R. § 1275.42(b) (30-day notice prior to public release); id. at § 1275.44(a) (right to assert a claim to block release based on right or privilege). Thus, Mr. Nixon actually [298 U.S.App.D.C. 267] retains no right to exclude others from this property; and certainly not one capable of being called a property interest. 69 Similarly unavailing are the Government's references to Mr. Nixon's abandonment of the materials upon his departure from Washington and his subsequent acceptance of the Nixon-Sampson agreement. First, nothing can be inferred from Mr. Nixon's having left the materials in the White House. In view of the volume of the materials (42 million items), Mr. Nixon did what he could to ensure that they would find their way to his California destination by arranging with his staff for the organization and shipment of the materials. Mr. Nixon's having left without them is in no way remarkable. Second, the Nixon-Sampson agreement does not reflect an acquiescence to complete dispossession of the materials. Indeed, the purpose of the agreement was apparently just the opposite: to ensure that valid judicial process could be satisfied by the new administration without Mr. Nixon having to relinquish title and control of his papers. The agreement was for a limited duration and it authorized Mr. Nixon to exclude unilaterally anyone from access other than those acting pursuant to a subpoena. The inference from this conduct that Mr. Nixon willingly engendered the PRMPA construct is simply too great of a logical leap. 70 In conclusion, PRMPA not only physically dispossessed Mr. Nixon of his property, but it also severely restricted his right of access to the property, his right to exclude others from the property, and his right to dispose of the property. Therefore, under the per se doctrine, PRMPA resulted in a taking and compensation is constitutionally required.