New York enacted a law requiring landlords to permit cable television companies to install cable facilities on their buildings. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. installed a small cable and related equipment on Loretto's apartment building pursuant to that statute. Loretto, the building owner, sued, arguing that the permanent physical occupation of her property authorized by the state was a taking requiring just compensation. The New York courts rejected her claim, treating the intrusion as too minor to amount to a compensable taking.
Does a state law that authorizes a cable company to permanently install equipment on a landlord's building effect a taking per se under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, even when the physical occupation is minor?
A permanent physical occupation of real property authorized by the government is a per se taking requiring just compensation, without regard to the public interests served or the size of the occupation. Temporary regulations that merely restrict use are evaluated under different standards, but permanent physical invasions receive categorical treatment.
Yes. The Court held that New York's statute authorized a permanent physical occupation of Loretto's property, and that such an occupation is a taking as a matter of law for which just compensation is required.
The Court distinguished between regulations that limit an owner's use and government-authorized permanent physical occupations, reasoning that the latter destroy the owner's rights to possess, use, and exclude in a uniquely serious way. Because the occupation was permanent and compelled, the small size of the cable installation and the asserted public benefits of cable access were irrelevant to whether a taking occurred. The Court emphasized the longstanding importance of the right to exclude as a core property right. It left the amount of compensation to be determined separately, noting that compensation might be nominal but could not be denied altogether.
Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and White, argued that the Court should not adopt a rigid per se rule for such minor intrusions and should instead analyze the statute under the more flexible regulatory-takings framework, balancing the public interest against the limited burden on the owner.
Loretto is a foundational takings case establishing the categorical rule that government-authorized permanent physical occupations are per se takings. It sharply separates permanent physical invasions from ordinary land-use regulation and reinforces the right to exclude as central to property ownership. The decision is closely related to Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which supplies the ad hoc balancing test for most regulatory takings; Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979), emphasizing the right to exclude; and Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), which limited Loretto by distinguishing voluntary landlord-tenant relationships from compelled permanent occupations.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) |
Abstain |
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) |
Abstain |
Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) |
Abstain |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →