Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, et al. (533 U.S. 606)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 28, 2001 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 533 U.S. 606 · 121 S. Ct. 2448
- Decided
- June 28, 2001
- Term
- October Term 2000
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Anthony Palazzolo owns a waterfront parcel of land in the town of Westerly, Rhode Island. Almost all of the property is designated as coastal wetlands under Rhode Island law. After petitioner’s development proposals were rejected by respondent Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (Council), he sued in state court, asserting the Council’s application of its wetlands regulations took the property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, binding upon the State through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner sought review in this Court, contending the Supreme Court of Rhode Island erred in rejecting his takings claim. We granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 923 (2000). I The town of Westerly is on an edge of the Rhode Island coastline. The town’s western border is the Pawcatuck River, which at that point is the boundary between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Situated on land purchased from the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the town was incorporated in 1669 and had a precarious, though colorful, early history. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts contested the boundaries — and indeed the validity — of Rhode Island’s royal charter; and Westerly’s proximity to Connecticut invited encroachments during these jurisdictional squabbles. See M. Best, The Town that…
Excerpt of a 42,552-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.