Opinion ID: 203942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Character of the Government Action

Text: The third Penn Central factorthe character of the government action strongly favors finding no taking here. Under Penn Central, [a] `taking' may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. 438 U.S. at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646 (citation omitted). Thus, in Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716, 107 S.Ct. 2076, 95 L.Ed.2d 668 (1987), the Supreme Court found a taking where the character of the government regulation was extraordinary in that it completely extinguished the property owner's right to pass on the property to his heirs. By contrast, the free care laws adjust the benefits and burdens of economic life but leave the core rights of property ownership intact. Maine's free care laws merely require that hospitals not refuse to treat patients based on their ability to pay and that they provide those services freely to those with incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. FMH may otherwise set the terms on which it provides access to its facilities and services. Thus, on these facts, we hold that Maine's free care laws do not effect a taking.