# Amicus Curiae Brief — McQueen v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_1900%3A6

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2003
- **Citation:** 540 U.S. 982

## Text

No. 03 -0159

In the
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 2003

SAM B. MCQUEEN,
Petitioner,
We
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, OFFICE OF OCEAN & COASTAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (f/k/a SOUTH CAROLINA
COASTAL COUNCIL),
Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of South Carolina r

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIE ANTHONY PALAZZOLO, NEW
ENGLAND LEGAL FOUNDATION, THE AMERICAN FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Counsel for Amici Curize

MICHAEL E. MALAMUT

Counsel of Record

New England Legal Foundation
150 Lincoln Street

Boston, MA 02111

Tel.: (617) 695-3660

Fax: (617) 695-3656

BERT RRENA te0 W Bc RE AORET

FG ERIE AIR ELA REGIS Do ILE LS SEL

Lay se

ee ee

Ss rie i ea Mae SSN BON IN OS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Amici Curiz Anthony Palazzolo, the American
Farm Bureau, and the South Carolina Farm Bureau
adopt the question presented by Petitioner Sam B.
McQueen:

Whether a court may deny compensation
for a categorical taking by invoking a new
and expansive conception of the public
trust doctrine, thereby disregarding the
limits placed by this Court’s regulatory
takings decisions on the definition of a
background principle of law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CATIONS FRI os visicsivstirniessht en a eenaas i
SOE OF CAITR ives sitnsncctsscetccssnimieanmaaanaiiessies il
TAREE CE TIT osninscincdcvscemkoeineoreeea ill
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURRIE iis vcissvncsnvstavancevenessecetssvevesees 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............0ccececeseeeeees 7 ee 6
TREN ss stsisivcnistorercumvmisasanouatntniaenanaiealenanei tj |
I. The decision below constitutes an |

attempted evasion of federal law |
because the South Carolina Supreme

Court engaged in several procedural

irregularities in order to reach its

result-oriented conclusion ........................... ci

II. The South Carolina Supreme Court’s
significant expansion of the public
trust doctrine invites review because
the court’s novel substantive
interpretation of the public trust
doctrine contradicts traditional
South Carolina public trust
INNES Succi ssascdiensinttendc tnanceidtaiasthasamneiini anes 13

SEIN oisisinsvitnrenscetdiaiaveiditaniummdamieanintladi Aca. 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

City of Folly Beach v. Atlantic House Properties, Inc.,
318 S.C. 450, 458 S.E.2d 426 (1995) ...12,15,1lo

Coburg Dairy, Inc. v. Lesser, 318 S.C. 510,
Be EE CEP ovsccecccvesroveseseccassesesesenes 16

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) ..... 14

Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995) ............. 10

Horry County v. Woodward, 282 S.C. 366,
318 S.E.2d 584 (Ct. App: 1984) ...................... 15

Howlett by Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) ....... 14

Hughes v. Nelson, 303 S.C. 102,
399 S.E.2d 24 (Ct. App. 1990) .................0..06+. 12

Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) ....17

Lite House, Inc. v. J.C. Roy Co., 309 S.C. 50,
419 $.B.26 617 (Ct. App. 1992) .........000000000000 10

Low Country Open Land Trust v. State, 347 S.C. 96,
$52 S.BE.2d 778 (Ct. App. 2001) .......00.0.0000. 12,15

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
ER OF, BUM LED PAD vsccesccveccssessescennsceses 7,13,14

McQueen v. South Carolina Department of Health
& Envtl. Control, 533 U.S. 943 (2001) ............... 7

McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
340 S.C. 65, 530 S.E.2d 628 (2000)
FEE © scien scvaciicenwiieensctommaennuacsbeaanenind 8,9

McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
354 S.C. 142, 580 S.E.2d 116 (2003)

(“McQueen IP) ...... seseusneeeeseseseasees 8,9,10,12,14,16

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) ....7,8,9,
13,14

Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation,

ee OE Fe Ce ectatinttreciencsnencotonseencnnenesnces 8
Satcher v. Satcher, 351 S.C. 477, 570 S.E.2d 535

OR. FA FREE 90 sian neecimmanaeesied 11
Shands v. Triplet, 26 S.C. Eq.

(S Rich. Eq.) 76 (1652) ............ccsssssssssserereees 15
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894) ........ eee 16

Sierra Club v. Kiawah Resort Assocs., 318 S.C. 119,
Se a Pe CRE hist peinersesvonsesnsicscevnntannes 17

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources v

Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617,

BED BT FO CED asccsncscssessncsivescacencsnsssess 11
Spigener v. Cooner, 42. S.C.L. (8 Rich.) 301 (1855) ..... 15
State v. Fain, 273 S.C. 748, 259 S.E.2d 606 (1979) ...11

State v. Hardee, 259 S.C. 535,
193 S.B.2d 497 (IDTA) ...0.cccescccseocenssvees 11,12,16

iv

State ex rel. McLeod v. Sloan Constr. Co., 284 S.C. 491,
328 S.E.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1985) ....... 15

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

Pe SINUS TF nentsiccnincndiemnbaisacadaeee center 14,18
Notes SO GIN. FIBY ncinstasscavsensassvesnoncvesuecavands 14,18
eRe Sk Sy PP TED ccostniscunobsnonsdaaueedecmateaanieanes 11
RULES

Ss aris Ws RR niciniiiss Siasccinecacctumelinenteeliaiaanine lace D ee 7
REGULATIONS

S.C. Dept. of Health & Envtl. Control,
SECS Ge Ee Sittin nineteen 11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Joseph K. Angell, Treatise on the Right of Property
Oe Fale TO SD iin enscicanccnderincussamoentcxstatons 15

Matthew Hale, De Jure Maris, C. 4 oo... ec ceccccecccccccccceces 15

16B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice &
Procedure § 4021 (1996 & Supp. 2003) ........... 14

16B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice &
Procedure § 4029 (1996 & Supp. 2003) ........... 14

18B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice
& Procedure § 4478.3 (2003) .............cccceecceeeeeee 8

Vv

Lloyd R. Cohen, The Public Trust Doctrine:
An Economic Perspective,
29 CAL. W. L. REV. ZaP (IGG) occcsnseccscesecsecneses 17

Richard J. Lazarus, Changing Conceptions of
Property and Sovereignty in Natural
Resources: Questioning the Public Trust
Doctrine, 71 IOWA L. REV. 631 (1986) ............... 17

No. 03 -0159

In the
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 2003

SAM B. MCQUEEN,
Petitioner,
V.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, OFFICE OF OCEAN & COASTAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (1/7 k/a SOUTH CAROLINA
COASTAL COUNCIL),

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Suprem Ree Sindy th 2

issues set forth in the guidelines enunciated in this
Order.

8. Either party who may be aggrieved by this
judgment may appeal to this Court.

Chief Justice Weisberger (Ret.) participated in
the deliberations relative to this Order.

Chief Justice Williams did not participate.

Entered as an order of this Court on this 24th
day of June, 2002.

By Order,
s/Brian B. Burns
Clerk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_1900%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.