Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 22, 2005 Decided May 23, 2005
Full case name	Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Docket no.	04-163
Citations	544 U.S. 528 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2074; 161 L. Ed. 2d 876; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4342
Case history
Prior	Judgment for plaintiffs, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (D. Haw. 1998). Judgment vacated and remanded, 224 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000). Judgment for plaintiffs, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Haw. 2002). Judgment affirmed, 363 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2004).
Procedural	Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Subsequent	Case remanded to district court for further proceedings, 415 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005).
Holding
Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon,[1] the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
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	O'Connor, joined by unanimous
Concurrence	Kennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005),^[2] was a landmark case in United States regulatory takings law whereby the Court expressly overruled precedent created in Agins v. City of Tiburon.^[1] Agins held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Writing for the Court, Justice O’Connor found the test untenable for a number of reasons, but declined to grant Chevron relief because Chevron’s motion before the court (for grant of summary judgment) was limited to a discussion of the “substantially advances” theory which had just been struck down. The Court remanded to the Ninth Circuit for a determination of whether the statute exacted a taking according to the formula of Penn Central.^[3]