# Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 23, 2005 · 544 U.S. 528

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434793

## Case

- **Full name:** LINGLE, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, Et Al. v. CHEVRON U. S. A. INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 23, 2005
- **Citations:** 544 U.S. 528; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 303; 35 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20106; 73 U.S.L.W. 4343; 125 S. Ct. 2074; 161 L. Ed. 2d 876; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4342
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 1,157 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434793

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating the United States Supreme Court's declaration in Agins v. Cityof Tiburon [1980], 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, that "`[t]he application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state inte…
- finding that “where [Government requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her property-however minor-it must provide just compensation,” and where regulations “completely deprive an owner of all economically beneficial us[e] of her property,” the Government …
- explaining that “the ‘substantially advances’ formula announced in Agins[, which held that the application of a zoning law to a property is a taking if the law does not substantially advance legitimate state interests,] is not a valid method of identifying regulatory takings f…
- stating that “whether [the government ac *814 tion] amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good” is relevant to determining whether a taki…
- stating that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution mandates compensation for otherwise proper interference with property rights that amounts to a taking and that governmental action in violation of due process, though impermissible, is not a taking

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
This separate writing is to note that today’s decision does not foreclose the possibility that a regulation might be so arbitrary or irrational as to violate due process. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U. S. 498, 539 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). The failure *549 of a regulation to accomplish a stated or obvious objective would be relevant to that inquiry. Chevron voluntarily dismissed its due process claim without prejudice, however, and we have no occasion to consider whether Act 257 of the 1997 Hawaii Session Laws “represents one of the rare instances in which even such a permissive standard has been violated.” Apfel, supra, at 550 . With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434793. Public record. Not legal advice.