|
<br />505 U.s. 1043
<br />
<br />LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
<br />Cite as 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992)
<br />
<br />2907
<br />
<br />state proCedures for just compensation, there
<br />is no final judgment, and in the absence of a
<br />final judgment there is no jurisdiction, see
<br />San Diego Gas &: Electric Co. v. San Diego,
<br />450 U.S. 621, 633, 101 S.Ct. 1287, 1294, 67
<br />L.Ed.2d 551 (1981); Agins v. City of Tibu-
<br />ran, 447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141,
<br />65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980).
<br />
<br />This rule is "compelled by the very nature
<br />of the inquiry required by the Just Compen-
<br />sation Clause," because the factors applied.in
<br />deciding a takings claim "simply cannot be
<br />evaluated until. the administrative agency has
<br />arrived at a final, definitive position regard-
<br />ing how it will apply the regulations at issue
<br />to the particular land in qu~on." William-
<br />son County Regional Planning Comm'n v.
<br />Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U;S.
<br />172, 190, 191, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3118, 3119, 87
<br />L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). See also MacD6nald;
<br />Sommer &: Frates, 477 U.S., at 348, '106
<br />S.Ct., at 2566 ("A court cannot determine
<br />whether a regulation has gone 'too far' unless
<br />it knows how far the regulation goes") (cita-
<br />tion omitted).
<br />
<br />The Court admits that the 1990 amend-
<br />ments to the. Beachfront Management Act
<br />allowing special permits preclude. Lucas from
<br />asserting that his property has been perma-
<br />nently taken. See ante, at 2890-2891. The
<br />Court agrees that such a claim would not be
<br />ripe because there has been no final decision
<br />by respondent on what uses will be permit-
<br />ted. ~The Court, however, will not be
<br />denied: It determines. that petitioner's "tem-
<br />porary takings" claini for the period from
<br />July 1, 1988, to June 25, 1990, is ripe. But
<br />this claim also is not justiciable.4
<br />
<br />From the very beginning of this litigation,
<br />respondent has argUed that the courts
<br />
<br />4. The Court's .reIiance;ante, at 2892, on Esposito
<br />v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 939 F.2d 165.
<br />168 (eM 1991), cert.denied, 505 U.S. 1219. 112
<br />S.Ct. 3027,120 LEd.2d.898 (1992), in support of
<br />its decision to consider Lucas' temporary takings
<br />claim ripe is misplaced. In Esposito the plain-
<br />
<br />"lac[k] jurisdiction in this matter because
<br />the Plaintiff has sought no authorization
<br />from Council for use of his property, has
<br />not challenged the location of the baseline
<br />or setback line as alleged in the Complaint
<br />and because no final agency. decision has
<br />been rendered concerning use of his prop-
<br />erty or location of said baseline or setback
<br />line." Tr. 10 (answer, as amended)..
<br />
<br />Although the Council's plea has been ignored
<br />by every court, it is undoubtedly correct.
<br />
<br />Under the Beachfront Mllliagement Act,
<br />petitioner was entitled to challenge the set-
<br />back line or the baseline or erosion rate
<br />applied to his property in fonnaladministra-
<br />tive, followed by judicial, proceedings.
<br />S.C.Code Ann. ~ 48-39-28O(E) (Supp.1991).
<br />Because Lucas failed to pursue this adminis-
<br />trative remedy, the Council never finally de-
<br />cided :whether Lucas' particular piece of
<br />property was correctly categorized as a criti-
<br />cal area in which building would not be per-
<br />mitted. This is all the more crucial because
<br />Lucas argued. strenuously in the trial court
<br />that his land was perfectly safe to build on,
<br />and that his company had studies to prove it.
<br />Tr. 20, 25, 36. If he was correct, the Coun-
<br />cil's....h.~ decision would have been to
<br />alter the setback line, eliminating the con-
<br />struction ban on Lucas' property.
<br />
<br />That petitioner's property fell within the
<br />critical area as initially interpreted by the
<br />Council does not excuse petitioner's failure to
<br />challenge the Act's application to his proper-
<br />ty in the administrative process. The claim
<br />is not ripe until petitioner seeks a variance
<br />from that status. "[W]e have made it quite
<br />clear that the mere assertion of regulatory
<br />jurisdiction by a governmental body does not
<br />constitute a regulatory taking." United
<br />States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474
<br />U.S. 121, 126, 106 S.Ct. 455, 459, 88 L.Ed.2d
<br />419 (1985). See also Williamson County,.
<br />
<br />tiffs brought a facial c\tallenge to the mere enact-
<br />mtmt of the Act. Here. of course, Lucas has
<br />brought an as-applied challenge. See Brief for
<br />Petitioner 16. Facial challenges are ripe when
<br />the Act is passed; applied challenges require a
<br />
|