In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(
) entered into an agreement that gave the
Petitioner‘s predecessor in interest, Nomikano, Inc.,
the right to fill certain wetlands on its property. Inexchange, the government obtained a flowageeasement over a portion of the property. Petitionerwas Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikano and involvedin those negotiations. In 2000, Petitioner obtainedthe property. Subsequently, in 2006, he sought apermit from the Corps to fill certain wetlands inaccordance with the agreement. The Corps deniedhis permit.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitheld that Petitioner had zero reasonable investment-backed expectations simply because he purchasedthe property after the enactment of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1521
The Federal Circuitthen concluded that this, by itself, constituted asufficient regulatory takings analysis, and affirmed
the district court‘s dismissal of Petitioner‘s claims.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
, 533 U.S. 606(2001), this Court uniformly rejected the categorical
rule that ―postenactment purchasers cannotchallenge a regulation under the Takings Clause.‖
at 626.The questions presented are:1.
Can lower courts bypass
and inserta new categorical rule to the Takings Clause