Property Rights, the Gang of Four & the Fifth Vote: \u3cem\u3eStop the Beach from Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection \u3c/em\u3e (U.S. Supreme Court 2010)

In 2010 The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (SBR v. Fla. EPA). Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment of the Court. All Justices agreed that Florida had not violated the Takings Clause of the Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. But then in a plurality opinion Justice Scalia joined by the Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito proposed profound changes in the law of “regulatory takings.” As the spokesman for the Court’s property rights absolutists Scalia advanced two novel legal propositions. First he argued that federal courts had the power to collaterally attack and reverse state court decisions which evaded the requirements of the Taking Clause with pretextual background principles of the State\u27s law of property. Second he opined that each of the “essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property”[1] was a separate distinct property right, and that any deprivation of an “established property right” was a compensable Taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If the “Gang of Four” can find a fifth vote, the law of regulatory takings will be radically revised. [1]Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979