Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 7, 2002 Decided April 23, 2002
Full case name	Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Incorporated, et al. v. Tahoe-Regional Planning Agency, et al.
Citations	535 U.S. 302 (more) 122 S. Ct. 1465; 152 L. Ed. 2d 517; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3028; 70 U.S.L.W. 4260; 54 ERC (BNA) 1129; 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3495; 32 ELR 20627; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
Case history
Prior	Judgment for plaintiff, 34 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Nev. 1999), reversed, 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 533 U.S. 948 (2001).
Holding
The moratorium did not constitute a taking. There was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation is required.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Dissent	Thomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.^[1]