Document: 520 U.S. 725117 S.Ct. 1659137 L.Ed.2d 980 Bernadine SUITUM, Petitioner,v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY. No. 96-243. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 26, 1997. Decided May 27, Syllabus * Petitioner Suitum owns an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency determined that is ineligible for development under agency regulations, but entitled to receive certain allegedly valuable "Transferable Development Rights'' (TDRs) she can sell other landowners with agency's approval. did not seek those rights, instead brought this action compensation 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming determinations amounted a regulatory taking her property without just in violation Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District held claim ripe adjudication because has attempted TDRs, so their specific values are unknown court could realistically assess whether regulations have frustrated reasonable expectations. Ninth Circuit agreed affirmed, reasoning, inter alia, on TDR transfer application would be requisite "final decision'' by regarding its regulations' Suitum's lot. Held: adjudication. Pp. ____. (a) must satisfy prudential ripeness principle requiring from property. Williamson County Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank Johnson City, 473 172, 186, 105 3108, 3116, 87 126. ____-____. (b) Circuit's rationale holding unripe-that had failed obtain final authoritative decision-is unsupported Court's precedents. See, e.g., County, supra, at 191, 193, S.Ct., 3118-3119; MacDonald, Sommer & Frates Yolo 477 340, 349, 106 2561, 2566, 91 285. These precedents make two points clear about finality requirement: it applies decisions how plaintiff's particular parcel may used, see, 3119, responds high degree discretion characteristically possessed land use boards softening strictures general they administer, see 350, 2566. satisfies demand finality. It undisputed finally lies entirely within zone which permitted. Because no exercise over right land, occasion exists applying County's requirement landowner take steps decision will permitted parcel. Although parties contest relevance TDRs question occurred, resolution legal issue require further sort demanded County. (c) Contrary lower courts' holdings, possible type required dealt such might required, given position should considered when determining if there were any here discretionary award saleable TDRs. No presented, however, since agree entitled, made official them or offer sale. P. 1667. (d) argument case attributable known variation preceding position, fares better. First, as rights later sell, little uncertainty remains. Second, only contingency apart private market turns local body deny approval based buyer's intended improper However, does many potential lawful buyers whose receipt unquestionably approved, TDRs' valuation simply fact prices, considerable evidence. Similar routinely courts benefit transaction subject (e) unripe "fitness review'' Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 148-149, 1507, 1515-1516, 18 681, rejected. point petitioners challenging validity regulation beyond scope issuing authority, whereas seeks invalidate issue, paid consequences. Indeed, extent sense instructive disposition case, cuts directly against agency: definitively barred affirmative step develop there, who prevailed contention was unripe, bound comply challenging. 80 F.3d 359 (C.A. 9), vacated remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., STEVENS, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, joined except Parts II-B II-C. filed concurring part judgment, O'CONNOR joined. R. S. Radford, Sacramento, CA, petitioner. Richard J. Lazarus, University MO, respondent. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Court. Justice SOUTER 1 Nevada shore Agency, regulates region, (TDRs). Rev. Stat. §1979, Agency's While pleadings raise issues significance both occurred constitutional compensation, we decide, do these deciding been opposed afforded taking. sole adjudication, even though eligible receive. We hold is. 2 In 1969, Congress approved Compact between California Nevada, creating respondent interstate regulate basin. See Country Estates, Inc. 440 391, 394, 99 1171, 1173, 59 401 (1979). After 1969 compact proven inadequate protection lake environment, proposed amendment 1980, adopt plan barring exceeding "environmental threshold carrying capacities'' find appropriate. Pub.L. 96-551, Arts. I(b), V(b), V(g), 94 3234, 3239-3241.1 3 1987, adopted new Plan providing "Individual Parcel Evaluation System'' (IPES) rate suitability vacant residential parcels building modification. Code Ordinances ch. 37 (TRPA Code). Whereas attain minimum IPES score qualify construction, id., §37.8.E; App. 145, areas run-off into watershed (known "Stream Environment Zones'' (SEZs)) receives zero, TRPA §37.4.A(3). With limited exceptions relevant here, permits "additional coverage permanent disturbance'' Id., §20.4. 4 1987 provide variances conventional schemes, addresses sharpness restrictions granting owners sold §§20.3.C, 34.0 34.3. There three kinds An owner needs "Residential Right'' Allocation'' place unit buildable parcel, §§21.6.C, 33.2.A; latter construction begin calendar year, expires year's end, §33.2.B(3)(b). also "Land Coverage each square foot impermeable cover placed upon land. 145; 20. All existed effective date (July 1, 1987), including SEZ parcels, automatically one Residential Right, §21.6.A; bonus equivalent additional Rights, §§35.2.C, 35.2.D. Land Rights authorizing area equal 1% surface §§20.3.A, 37.11. Finally, owners, like apply Allocation, awarded jurisdictions random drawings year.2 §33.2.B; 98-99. transferred Region, eligibility receiving development. 34.1 5 1972, late husband bought Washoe jurisdiction, 17 years later, after adoption Plan, obtained Allocation through annual drawing. When then applied permission construct house lot, located SEZ, assigned denied build. appealed denial governing board, itself relief. 6 turned down request permit, effort hers plan, dispute still Right lots received, plus 183 feet got 18,300 common ground "bonus'' Rights. questioned certainty sought one, represented undoubtably would, n. 2, supra. 7 Instead, §1983 alleging denying deprived "all economically viable use'' property, Amendments.3 15, 16. responded objecting, among things, due "failure amount . allowed by'' agency. 10. On cross-motions summary ordered supplemental briefing nature "what [TDRs] [Suitum's] procedures, prerequisites value applicable case.'' 89. introduced affidavit real estate appraiser, already has, more $1,500 $2,500 each; $6 $12 per ($1,098-$2,196 total); devoid all $7,125 $16,750. 131-132. appraiser said together bring $30,000 $35,000. Ibid. As spite figures supplied own affidavit, maintained "actual benefits [TDR] program [Suitum] pursues appropriate [transfer] application,'' result 91. For part, insisted trying ""idle futile act''' "sham,''4 former employees view "there [Suitum's TDRs] present time either [there is] procedure transferring restrict opportunity remaining right,'' 135.5 8 decided consideration " [a]s things now stand, property.'' CV-N-91-040-ECR (D.Nev., Mar. 30, 1994) (App. Pet. Cert. C-3). found significant TDRs], until [specific] known, cannot what [the agency's] expectations.'' C-3 C-4. 9 Appeals affirmed ruling reason [w]ithout rights'' way "know full economic impact interference investment-backed expectations[,]'' agency] regulation[s] issue.''6 359, 362-363 (1996). granted certiorari consider claim, 519 ----, 117 293, 136 213 (1996), reverse. II 10 presented Amendments ready judicial review principles.7 independent hurdles state entity federal court. 126 (1985), explained plaintiff demonstrate received [challenged] issue'' "the government charged implementing regulations,'' "compensation procedures State provided doing so,'' 194, 3120. first follows "goes too far,'' Pennsylvania Coal Co. Mahon, 260 393, 415, 43 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), results Amendment, 348, 285 (1986) (" [a] determine gone "too far' unless knows far goes''); Lucas South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 1003, 1014-1019, 112 2886, 2892-2895, 120 798 (1992) (regulation far'' "at least[] extraordinary circumstance productive beneficial permitted''). second hurdle stems Amendment's proviso takings "just compensation'' infringe Amendment; "if provides adequate seeking Just Compensation Clause used compensation,'' County,, 195, 3121. prong addressed below briefed before confine our discussion issue.8 11 sufficient unclear urges precisely Brief 21 (conceding [w]e know regulation's restricting petitioner's land''), think important emphasize 12 Agins City Tiburon, 447 255, 100 2138, 65 (1980), employed notion declining reach merits as-applied claim.9 Agins, challenged zoning ordinances number houses build sued justiciable mere enactment statute taking.10 260, 2141. Without employing term "ripeness,'' "ha[d] submitted permit[ted], [was] yet concrete controversy provisions.'' 13 following Term, Hodel Virginia Surface Mining Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 264, 101 2352, 69 (1981), toughened nascent requirement. There, coal producers Control Act 1977, 30 §1201 et seq., concluded challenge reasoning [t]here indication record appellees ha[d] availed themselves opportunities administrative relief requesting variance [applicable provisions Act],'' U.S., 297, 2371.11 thus where regime offers possibility facial requirements, go submitting actually ripen his claim. 14 confirmed Hodel's holding. developer's complex rejected Commission inconsistent subdivision eight different respects. This acknowledged [r]espondent developing passed threshold,'' 187, 3117, nonetheless "among factors [taking] inquiry interferes expectations,'' "factors [that] evaluated arrived final, definitive question,'' ibid. Thus, developer least "resort obtaining [and obtain] conclusive determination allow'' development, 3120, order 15 (1986), reaffirmed position. purchased tentative Commission. treated proposal several respects, immediately suit. relying character dry-run submission merely emphasized course litigation opinions question, flatly contrary conclusory allegation him greenbelt public gratuity. 345-347, 2564-2565. Hence, County: ""[t]he effect Commission's ordinance respondent's measured developer's] property.''' 2566 (quoting 199-200, 3123). 16 Leaving aside finality,12 clear: administer. "local agencies administering singularly flexible institutions; hand give back other.'' flexibility bear permissible singular sound judgment asking parcel's characteristics proposal's details facially conform terms regulations. satisfied being "regulations [apply] question.'' 3119. "has SEZ,'' 21, therefore permit [n]o parties, course, B argued below, agreed, __, remains make: indisputably entitled. not, Those virtual impossibility invested great discretion, asked exercise. here. left buyer lawfully them. But sale completed quite saleable; long person buy, rendered unsaleable kill And class arguably law concerned sorts lots. C 19 ""values known,''' 23 C-4)), noted well greater offered although enter lottery latter, get one; fact, probability getting "100 percent'' according agency, Tr. Oral Arg. 40, fewer applications than available allocations, 39-40. probably always be, unreasonable drawing surely maintain odds success low, kept bay year won drawing; rule allow authority stultify guarantee. Rather, circumstances, allocation discounted reflect mathematical likelihood one. 20 grounds violate scheme regulation, reason. 34.2, bars turn out involve same assumed requirement, render nearly unknowable chances absence board yes no. approval, saleability assumes potential, approved. evidence it, __.13 Of appears saying, 22-23, very best actual selling price (assuming, good faith arm's length). similar proceedings 819.98 Acres Land, More Less, Located Wasatch Summit Counties, 78 1468, 1469-1470 (C.A.10 1996) (upholding condemned expert testimony relating comparable sales cash flow); L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336, 338-339 (C.A.6 1993) (same respect mineral leases); 5J. Sackman, Nichols' Law Eminent Domain §23-01, p. 23-6 (rev. 3d ed. 1997) [I]t established taken injured power eminent domain shown evidence.''); generally §12.02 (discussing establishment land). true hard calculate regular trade proceed difficulty, doctrine block her. objection concern much experience low estimates. risks pioneering, pioneer Suitum. III 22 argues (for time, Court) 681 (1967). arose petition Administrative Procedure (APA), §701-704 (1964 ed., Supp. II) group drug manufacturers labelling promulgated Commissioner Food Drugs (FDA) enforcement manufacturers. claimed FDA lacked statutory impose requirement; countered want enforce regulation. two-pronged test: 24 "Without undertaking survey intricacies fair say basic prevent courts, avoidance premature entangling abstract disagreements policies, protect formalized effects felt parties. problem seen twofold aspect, us evaluate fitness hardship withholding consideration.'' 1515 (footnote omitted). 25 Under prong, FDA's action'' meaning §10 APA, §704, Government's await enforcement. 149-152, 1515-1517. reasoned sufficiently direct immediate stage'' promulgation "puts dilemma'': "Either [labelling] incur costs changing promotional material labeling follow risk prosecution.'' 152, 1517 (internal quotation marks Similarly, "hardship'' prong: "Where fit resolution, requires change plaintiffs' conduct affairs serious penalties attached noncompliance,'' demonstrated "access permitted.'' 153, 1518. 26 point. companies authority. Whatever arguable merit been, rested precipitated (if wanted) violating defending subsequent prosecution placing question. She regulations; litigating validly bar done, raises value, lawfulness free consequences, some odd head money defense equity proceeding enjoin us, labels. situation enforcement, applicability. 27 *** 28 consistent vacate remand opinion. 29 ordered. whom THOMAS join, judgment. 31 I concur join sections (TRPA) reached ability Transferable (TDRs), known. That presumes answers questions preliminary stage case: my beside 32 To describe inquiry, quotes vague language issue,'' quoted ante, goes,'' __. Unmentioned other, specific, statements cases (and elsewhere) display clearly generalizations inquiry) nothing Later example, purpose ensure ascertain "how plaintiff] property,'' 190, 3118. page extracted statement, MacDonald says essential function "determination intensity legally 2566; [o]ur uniformly insistence knowing adjudicating constitutionality purport limit it,'' 351, 2567. fails mention, otherwise encyclopedic description most recent addressing subject, (1992), relied exclusively precise formulations mention today, 1011, 2891. 33 focus ascertaining governmental restriction use, exchange restriction. say, explains impossible mean profitable land,'' enough land.'' pertains taking, whether, so, compensation. 34 discussed Part II-A bearing made, __-__, (1981) land-use allowed. approve complex. again 35 (by decree) "attached.'' one's distinct confer someone else increased valuable, sure, conferred rather reduction essence, restricted extinguished extract others. payment relate (i.e., restricts severely constitute taking), taking; chit coupon government, redeemable hence marketable third compensation; TDR, peculiar enables party ways relates concerning constrained. 36 Putting side equation (as below) clever, albeit transparent, device advantage peculiarity clause jurisprudence: once Constitution full) 564.54 Monroe Pike 441 506, 510, 1854, 1856, 60 435 (1979) (owner put ""in pecuniarily taken'''); Monongahela Nav. States, 148 312, 326, 622, 626, 463 (1893) ("the perfect taken''), occur retains substantial (albeit Penn Central Transp. New York 438 104, 98 2646, 57 631 (1978). If government-regulator gives counted (causing taken), adequate, away paying less. going obvious, "although your regulated, entitles you $1,000.'' patently retention value. better "under scheme, every regulated cashed looks cleverness causes come, -whom reimburses outlay promise) restrictions. maintains supports conclusion remarked airspace above Grand Terminal transferable vicinity (some terminal owned), "not literally accurate owners] [their] pre-existing air rights''; "be account considering regulation.'' Central, 137, 2666 (emphasis original). analysis distinguished owned nearby adjacent Terminal, benefitted 115, 2654. said, aggregation owners' (or contiguous parcels); whole, diminished. affected supported concluding opinion, landmark site afford appellants enhance proper properties.'' 138, 2666. Central's one-paragraph expedition realm distinguishable fashion, deserve overruled. Considering calculus import whole series cases, since, restricted. severe enough, fully compensated. 38 suggest anything undesirable devious themselves. contrary, serve commendable mitigating loss suffered individual restricted, diminished, substantially produce compensable They form indeed entirety, accorded taken. Accord, 2673 (Rehnquist, dissenting) (noting "offered amounts'' suggesting appropriateness compensation). analysis, jurisprudence nullity, Comment, Environmental Interest Groups Regulation: Avoiding Clutches 48 U. Miami L.Rev. 1179, 1212 (1994). 39 sum, resolve looking fixing never occurred. Before bringing suit, petitioner basis TRPA's Zone''-a designation carries consequence disturbance shall permitted,'' concedes 21. need conclude met. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. 1980 defines [e]nvironmental capacity'' "an environmental standard necessary scenic, recreational, educational, scientific natural region health safety region. Such standards include quality, water soil conservation, vegetation preservation noise.'' Art. II(i), 3235. Counsel oral point'' "fewer applicants allocations'' located, percent chance winning [drawing].'' complaint raised substantive process claims, 16, writ address 6, infra. Response Defendant's Memorandum Concerning Transfer Program 1-2. disregarded showing affiant] Federal Rule Civil 56(e). C-2, 1). [t]hese requirements,'' while developed context, "are equally claims.'' F.3d, 362, 1. requirements express claims. drawn Article limitations reasons refusing jurisdiction.'' Reno Catholic Social Services, 509 43, 57, 18, 113 2485, 2496, 125 (1993). properly presents genuine "case controversy'' III, requirements. decide "state procedures'' case. Ordinarily, inverse condemnation initiating suit court, remedies 194-196, 3120-3122. counsel stated 4, proceedings, disagree. remedy damages, Cf. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation 911 1331, 1341-1342 (C.A.9 1990). matter remand. Two earlier, City,, (1978), Landmarks office top despite observation "it maintained, record, prohibited occupying portion Terminal. [City's] actions excess stories indicate refuse certificate comparably sized structure [t]he [City has] depended addition "would harmonize scale, material, Terminal].' Since smaller structure, Terminal.'' 136-137, 2665-2666 citation "facial'' challenges moment passed, face "uphill battle,'' Keystone Bituminous Assn. DeBenedictis, 480 470, 495, 107 1232, 1247, 472 (1987), difficult "mere enactment'' piece legislation "deprived owner] [his] 2371, (1981). face. ripe, ruled merits. 295-297, 2370-2371. suggested sometimes multiple proposals landowner's ripe. wrote, [r]ejection exceedingly grandiose plans logically imply less ambitious similarly unfavorable reviews.'' 353, 9, 2568, 9; compare 3118-3119 (applicant question), 3120 permitted). Amici Mayhews al., urge establish single Mayhews, Curiae 22. Moreover, may, necessary, trial

Category: 3