Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (544 U.S. 528)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 23, 2005 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 544 U.S. 528 · 125 S. Ct. 2074
- Decided
- May 23, 2005
- Term
- October Term 2004
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. On occasion, a would-be doctrinal rule or test finds its way into our case law through simple repetition of a phrase— however fortuitously coined. A quarter century ago, in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), the Court declared that government regulation of private property “effects a taking if [such regulation] does not substantially advance legitimate state interests____” Id., at 260. Through reiteration in a half dozen or so decisions since Agins, this language has been ensconced in our Fifth Amendment takings jurisprudence. See Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U. S. 687, 704 (1999) (citing cases). In the case before us, the lower courts applied Agins’ “substantially advances” formula to strike down a Hawaii statute that limits the rent that oil companies may charge to dealers who lease service stations owned by the companies. The lower courts held that the rent cap effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because it does not substantially advance Hawaii’s asserted interest in controlling retail gasoline prices. This case requires us to decide whether the “substantially advances” formula announced in Agins is an appropriate test for determining whether a regulation effects a Fifth Amendment taking. We conclude that it is not. I…
Excerpt of a 34,723-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.