American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Practice Exam

What legal principle was jettisoned in the case of Lingle v. Chevron in 2005?

1. The public purpose doctrine

2. The "substantially advances" test for takings

3. The three-part analysis for land use

4. The necessity test for property seizure

The correct answer is: The "substantially advances" test for takings

In the case of Lingle v. Chevron, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively discarded the "substantially advances" test, establishing a clearer distinction between regulatory takings and legitimate governmental regulation. This test had been utilized to evaluate whether a regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment if it does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest. The Court's decision clarified that this test adds confusion in determining whether a governmental action constitutes a taking of property. The ruling emphasized that the assessment of a regulatory taking should focus on the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner and whether it denies the owner all reasonable use of their property, rather than requiring a determination of whether the government has substantially advanced a legitimate interest. This marked a significant shift in property law and clarified the interpretation of what constitutes a taking, ensuring that government actions are held to a stricter standard.