WHEN DOES A REGULATION BECOME A TAKING? THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S MOST RECENT PRONOUNCEMENTS

Keystone Bituminous Coal, Irving, and Nollan are thus each consistent with paths taken in relevant precedents–the former two with “multifactor balancing” cases such as Penn Central and the latter with “enduring invasion equals taking” decisions such as Loretto v. TeleprompterM. However, can these twosets of precedents themselves be reconciled? I believe that the correct answer is “yes,” and that we therefore have another reason for asserting that Keystone Bituminous Coal and Nollan are consistent with each other. The tests are compatible in that the Court will first ask itself whether the regulation results in a longstanding occupation of property. If the answer is “yes,” it will declare a seizure then and there. Only if the answer if “no” will it proceed to balance.