The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a Wisconsin family and in favor of the government in a case that pitted property rights against environmental concerns.
The ruling makes it easier for the government to limit development in "environmentally sensitive" areas, the Associated Press reported.
The Murr family was attempting to sell a plot of land along the St. Croix river to pay for improvements on a cabin they own. But county officials said that the sale was not allowed because environmental regulations prohibit the property from being divided into two separate plots. The Murrs, in turn, brought suit, alleging that the regulation stripped their land of its value and that they were entitled to recompense.
The government argued that it owed the family nothing because it is fair to view the property as a whole.
Central to the case was the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the eminent domain power, which says that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." Specifically, the definition of "just compensation" was at play.
The court's liberal wing, plus swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, sided with the government. Writing for the majority, Kennedy said the government's rule constituted a "reasonable land-use regulation" and the land had not been deprived of value.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the majority, saying that the court's ruling undermined the Constitution's protections for private property. He also attacking the court's standard for determining the relevant parcel of land.
The case was of particular concern to property rights groups and businesses, both of which argue that it should be easier for small landowners to sell their property. More than 100 U.S. cities and counties have similar restrictions that treat two adjacent properties as one if they have the same owner.