Facts
- New York enacted N.Y. Exec. Law § 828 requiring landlords to permit cable television companies to install and maintain cable facilities on their buildings and limiting fees to an amount deemed reasonable by a state commission.
- The state commission set a one-time $1 payment as the reasonable fee for installation.
- Before Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building in New York City, a cable company installed cable lines and related components on the building’s exterior to serve Loretto’s tenants and other nearby buildings.
- After acquiring the property, Loretto discovered the equipment and filed a class action alleging that the statute-authorized installation was a taking without just compensation and also constituted trespass; she sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The installation occupied only a small area but was continuous and of indefinite duration, requiring the landlord to allow the facilities to remain.
Issues
- Whether a state law that authorizes a third party to install and maintain cable equipment on private property effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) when it results in a permanent physical occupation.
- Whether the small size of the occupation and minimal economic impact negate a takings claim.
- Whether a statutory cap on compensation (including nominal compensation) can satisfy the Just Compensation Clause when a permanent physical occupation is imposed.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the New York Court of Appeals and remanded.
- A government-authorized permanent physical occupation of real property is a taking to the extent of the occupation.
- The taking determination does not depend on the public benefit served, the minimal economic impact, or the small area occupied.
- The Court left the amount of constitutionally required compensation to be determined on remand.
Legal Principles
- A permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a per se taking requiring just compensation.
- Permanent physical occupations are categorically different from use restrictions evaluated under ad hoc regulatory-takings balancing tests.
- The right to exclude is a central property right; compelled permanent occupation transfers a discrete property interest to the occupier and destroys core incidents of ownership as to the occupied space.
- The size of the occupied area and the magnitude of economic impact are not controlling when the occupation is permanent.
Conclusion
The Court held that New York’s requirement that landlords allow cable facilities to remain on their buildings created a permanent physical occupation and therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation, even though the intrusion was minor and served an asserted public interest.