Did the Florida Supreme Court’s decision constitute a “judicial taking”?
During the state court litigation, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Respondents. See Brief for Petitioner at 16–17. The court ruled that, under Florida common law, beachfront property owners had no right for their property to continue contact with the water, nor any vested right of future accretion. See id. SBR claims that the Florida Supreme Court imposed a “judicial taking” by redefining the rights associated with oceanfront property out of existence, thus allowing the state to avoid compensating the owners for their taking. See id. SBR advocates adoption of a rule “that a state judicial decision effects a taking under the U.S. Constitution when it ‘constitutes a sudden change in state law, unpredictable in terms of relevant precedents.’” Id. at 17 (citing Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 296 (1967) (Stewart, J. concurring)). SBR argues that the judiciary should be subject to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, just like the executive and legislative branches. See Brief for P
Related Questions
- Does the Bush campaign have any additional avenues to challenge the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that the manual recount results should be included in the final counts?
- Did the Florida State Supreme Court act properly in its decision in the 2000 Presidential Election?
- What was the decision of the california supreme court on Prop 8 and what was the vote count?
