Whether courts can eliminate established property rights without just compensation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), the Court granted certiorari to settle a question that had divided lower courts: Can a judicial decision constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? The eight-justice Court that decided Stop the Beach was unable to resolve the question. A four-justice plurality concluded that the Takings Clause applies equally to the judicial branch as to the legislative and executive branches. But the remaining justices declined to resolve the issue. Far from clarifying the law, the Court’s fractured decision has only exacerbated the confusion in the lower courts. Some courts now follow the Stop the Beach plurality opinion and recognize judicial-takings claims. Others deny that judicial-takings claims are cognizable. This case presents an opportunity to resolve the question left open in Stop the Beach. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit courts, like other branches of government, from eliminating established property rights without just compensation. 2. Whether the New York Court of Appeals effected an unconstitutional taking by holding, contrary to decades of settled law and practice, that properties receiving benefits under Section 421-g of the New York Real Property Tax Law are ineligible for deregulation under New York’s rent-stabilization laws.