Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Property

533 U.S. 606 (2001)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakingsRegulatory TakingsRipenessLand Use RegulationTakings Clauseregulatory takingfinal decision

Facts

Palazzolo owned a waterfront parcel in Westerly, Rhode Island, most of which consisted of coastal wetlands subject to Rhode Island's wetlands regulations. After earlier efforts by his corporation to develop the land failed, title passed to him in 1978 after the corporation's charter was revoked. In 1983 and 1985 he applied to fill wetlands for development, including a private beach club, but the Coastal Resources Management Council denied both applications under regulations that generally barred filling wetlands adjacent to Type 2 waters absent a special exception for a compelling public purpose. The record also showed that an upland portion of the parcel retained development value of about $200,000 and could support a residence.

Issue

Was Palazzolo's regulatory takings claim ripe when the state agency had denied his wetlands-fill applications, and was his claim barred because he acquired title after the wetlands regulations were enacted? If not barred, did he establish a total taking under Lucas despite undisputed remaining development value in the upland portion of the parcel?

Rule

A regulatory takings claim is ripe once the responsible land-use authority has reached a final decision that makes clear the extent of development permitted on the property; a landowner need not submit further futile applications once the agency's position is known to a reasonable degree of certainty. A purchaser or successor who acquires title after a regulation's enactment is not thereby barred from asserting a takings claim, because a regulation does not become immune from challenge merely by passage of title. But no Lucas total taking exists where the parcel as presented still retains significant economic value, such as the ability to build a substantial residence on the upland portion.

🔒

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.

Nina Alvarez owns a 16-acre parcel along a protected estuary near Savannah, Georgia. The Coastal Habitat Board denied her application to place fill on 12 marsh acres for private cottages, stating that its rules prohibit fill on marshes adjacent to Class B waters except for projects serving a compelling public purpose, and later denied a smaller proposal for a private bait shop on the same ground for the same reason.

If Nina files a takings suit without submitting a third application proposing fill on 4 acres instead of 12, is her claim most likely ripe?

Explanation. A regulatory takings claim is ripe once the responsible agency has reached a final decision revealing the extent of permitted development. Further applications are unnecessary when they would be futile because the agency's regulations and decisions show with reasonable certainty that no fill or development for ordinary private uses will be allowed. That is the key principle derived from the majority opinion.