Bituminous Coal v. DeBenedictis

Supreme Court of the United States · Property

PropertyTakingsContracts ClausePolice PowerRegulatory TakingsTakings ClauseContracts Clausepolice power

Facts

Pennsylvania enacted the Subsidence Act after finding that existing mine-subsidence laws had failed to protect public interests in safety, land conservation, tax bases, water supplies, and land development. Section 4 bars mining that causes subsidence damage to certain preexisting public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries, and DER generally applied a rule requiring about 50% of the coal beneath protected structures to remain in place for support. Section 6 authorizes permit revocation if an operator causes damage to protected property and, within six months, neither repairs the damage, satisfies the claim, nor deposits repair costs as security. Petitioners owned or controlled substantial coal reserves and claimed the Act took their property, including their asserted support estates and coal left in place, and that Section 6 impaired contractual damage waivers obtained from surface owners.

Issue

Whether Sections 4 and 6 of Pennsylvania's Subsidence Act and implementing regulations facially effect a taking without just compensation, and whether Section 6 unconstitutionally impairs petitioners' contractual waivers of liability for surface subsidence damage. More specifically, the question was whether the mere enactment of the Act denied petitioners economically viable use of their property or imposed an unjustified impairment of private contracts.

Rule

In a facial challenge to a land-use regulation, the question is whether the mere enactment of the statute either fails substantially to advance legitimate state interests or denies the owner economically viable use of the relevant property. Takings analysis requires consideration of the character of the governmental action, the economic impact of the regulation, and its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, while evaluating the property as a whole rather than isolating discrete segments or individual strands in the bundle of rights. For Contracts Clause challenges involving private contracts, substantial impairment may be upheld when the State pursues a significant and legitimate public purpose and reasonably adjusts the parties' rights; where the State is not itself a contracting party, courts defer to legislative judgment on necessity and reasonableness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado enacts a statute requiring underground gypsum operators near Colorado Springs to leave enough material in place to prevent collapse damage to homes, schools, and public roads, and authorizes regulators to enforce the rule through permitting conditions. Front Range Minerals files a preenforcement facial challenge but offers no evidence that any of its mines, or its business as a whole, has become unprofitable.

How should a court most likely rule on the facial takings claim?

Explanation. The majority held that in a facial challenge, the question is whether the mere enactment of the statute denies economically viable use or otherwise fails to substantially advance legitimate state interests. A claimant bears a heavy burden and cannot prevail merely by showing that some material must remain unmined; it must show loss of economically viable use of the relevant property, viewed as a whole. Here, the company offers no proof that any mine or the business has become unprofitable, so the facial claim fails. (Derived from Bituminous Coal v. DeBenedictis (n.d.).)