Opinion ID: 2585381
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Holmes Test

Text: In the famous case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), Justice Holmes wrote: The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. The first part of this sentence, property may be regulated to a certain extent, is often overlooked. It means the police power may legitimately regulate property. As Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority 70 years later said: It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). [14] Thus, regulation of property is not forbidden. The question as Holmes posed it is when does a regulation go so far as to constitute a taking: For just as there comes a point at which the police power ceases and leaves only that of eminent domain, it may be conceded that regulations of the present sort [rent control] pressed to a certain height might amount to a taking without due process. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 156, 41 S.Ct. 458, 65 L.Ed. 865 (1921) (upholding District of Columbia rent control law). The determination of when a regulation goes too far is necessarily a substantive judgment. The object of the too far inquiry is to distinguish the point at which regulation becomes so onerous that it has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession. Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 199, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Here, the effect of the challenged Act is negligible. A park owner must simply give the park tenants notice of an impending sale and accept their offer if it equals the first offer. The park owner is financially as well off as if the statute were not in effect. By any test imaginable, other than an absolute prohibition against any regulation of property, the statute in the present case does not go too far.