Posted on 05/23/2005 2:40:07 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
High Court Rules Hawaii May Impose Rent Caps on Gas Stations
Published: May 23, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Hawaii did not overstep its authority when it moved to keep gasoline prices in line by imposing caps on the rent paid by dealer-run stations.
The unanimous decision was a defeat for Chevron USA, which argued that Hawaii's law was an unconstitutional "taking" of private property. The ruling means that state legislatures preserve their authority to set local economic regulations without extensive second-guessing by federal courts.
Ruling otherwise would "require courts to scrutinize the efficacy of a vast array of state and federal regulations - a task for which courts are not well suited," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
"Moreover, it would empower - and might often require - courts to substitute their predictive judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert agencies," she wrote.
The stakes were high, although the outcome was expected. A ruling for Chevron would have opened the door to lawsuits from businesses challenging numerous laws - from residential rent control to environmental regulations and even minimum-wage requirements - on grounds they were an unfair "taking" of profits.
Hawaii, which has had some of the nation's highest gasoline prices, passed the law in 1997 to protect independent dealers and promote competition. It restricted lease prices that oil companies could charge their dealer-owned stations and barred the companies from taking over those stations.
Chevron then sued, arguing the law was an unconstitutional "taking" of the company's profits because it failed to "substantially advance" the state's goal of lowering retail gasoline prices. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Two lower courts agreed, ruling the law was unconstitutional because it failed to achieve Hawaii's objective of limiting gasoline costs.
Hawaii was backed in its appeal by the Bush administration and 32 states and territories, which argued that judges should give deference to elected state and local governments to set economic policy.
Those states and territories supporting Hawaii were: New York, California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
The case was one of three this term seeking to delineate the rights of property owners. The other two, which have not yet been decided, examine whether local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development; and whether property owners can bring their claims to federal court after losing in state court.
Monday's case is Lingle v. Chevron USA, 04-163.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
AP-ES-05-23-05 1721EDT
Totally false. It's quite simple, actually: No government rightfully has the power to take private property by means of any bill of attainder--which is precisely what any rent-control law is. This no more requires the Federal courts to exercise uncanny powers of judgement than does enforcing the prohibitions of the First Ammendment against criminalization of speech: it's just not allowed, period.
Hmm. . .states rights. . .socialism. . .states rights. . .socialism. . .
States rights are a means to an end, so I guess I'll come down on the court being wrong on this. It was an unconstitutional taking.
Ditto to that.
No mention of closing the station and selling the land for a Starbucks or a McDonalds. Then we could see what happens to gasoline prices when a large percentage of the stations go away.
SCOTUS strikes again.
Ain't it funny how States change their tune when it comes to a property owner being able to bar gun owners with a carry license from carrying on their property?
Sandra Day O'Conner retired from the bench years ago.
She just refuses to step down and make it official.
She's become to lazy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.