Facts
- Florida holds title in trust for the public to land permanently submerged beneath navigable waters and the foreshore; the mean high-water line generally marks the boundary between state-owned and privately owned littoral land.
- Littoral owners possess state-law rights of access to the water, certain uses of the water, view, and to receive accretions and relictions.
- Florida law distinguishes accretion (gradual, shifting the boundary seaward for the upland owner) from avulsion (sudden change, leaving the pre-event mean high-water line as the upland boundary and assigning newly created land seaward of that line to the seabed owner, typically the State).
- Florida’s Beach and Shore Preservation Act authorizes beach restoration/nourishment and, for a project area, replaces the fluctuating mean high-water line with a fixed “erosion control line” as the boundary between private and state property; future accretions seaward of that line belong to the State.
- In 2003, the City of Destin and Walton County sought permits to restore an eroded beach by adding roughly 75 feet of sand seaward of the then-existing mean high-water line, with the added land seaward of the fixed erosion control line treated as state-owned.
- A nonprofit association of affected littoral owners challenged the permits, asserting loss of (1) rights to future accretions and (2) the right for their land to remain in physical contact with the water.
- After administrative proceedings and intermediate appellate review, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Act’s application, concluding the owners did not possess the property interests they claimed were taken.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed whether the state court’s decision and the statutory scheme effected an unconstitutional taking, including whether a state court can commit a “judicial taking.”
Issues
- Whether establishing a fixed erosion control line and creating state-owned dry land seaward of it took littoral owners’ property rights (future accretions and contact with the water) without just compensation.
- Whether a state supreme court decision interpreting state property law can itself constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (“judicial taking”).
Decision
- The Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court and held unanimously that no taking occurred.
- The Court concluded that, under Florida property law (including avulsion principles), the renourishment project did not eliminate an established private property right to future accretions or perpetual contact with the water.
- A four-Justice plurality stated that courts may be capable of effecting takings if they eliminate established property rights, but the Court did not adopt a majority rule on a “judicial takings” doctrine.
- Concurring Justices declined to decide the existence or scope of judicial takings and indicated that extreme judicial alterations of property law may be addressed, if at all, through due process analysis.
Legal Principles
- A Takings Clause claim requires the claimant to identify a cognizable property right under state law that is superior to the State’s asserted entitlement.
- Under Florida’s avulsion doctrine, sudden additions to land (including artificial additions) do not shift the littoral boundary; newly created land seaward of the prior mean high-water line belongs to the owner of the seabed.
- Littoral rights to future accretions and continued contact with the water may be limited by background state property law, including the State’s authority over submerged lands held in public trust.
- Fixing a boundary line for restoration purposes does not effect a taking where state law does not recognize the asserted private entitlement to have the boundary continue to migrate seaward with future accretions.
- The Court left unresolved whether, and under what standard, a judicial decision can constitute a compensable taking; no majority endorsed a definitive “judicial takings” test.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Florida’s beach renourishment program because Florida law did not grant littoral owners an established right to future accretions or perpetual water contact that would override the State’s interests in submerged lands; although a plurality discussed “judicial takings,” the Court did not adopt a controlling doctrine.