Also known as: public land · public-land · federal lands · public domain
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Government-owned lands held for public use and benefit. Congress holds plenary power under the Property Clause to regulate and protect such lands, including wildlife on them, even against contrary state efforts. Public land-use regulations and doctrines such as the public-trust doctrine fall outside the definition of servitudes.
Pierce Patterson enters a federal campground to use its public facilities. A steep unmarked drop-off lies near the main trail. The agency managing the site knows the hazard yet takes no precautions. Because Patterson is entitled to use the public land, the agency should anticipate harm and faces liability.
Priscilla Parks and fellow protesters stand on a public sidewalk across from a military funeral. They display offensive signs about government policy but remain peaceful and do not block access. The family sues for emotional distress. The First Amendment bars liability because the speech occurs on public land and addresses a matter of public concern.
Patrick Phan buys acreage subject to a county zoning ordinance that limits development on adjacent public land. He claims the ordinance creates a servitude running with his title. The ordinance is a public land-use regulation and therefore lies outside the law of servitudes.
Pedro Pacheco hunts protected elk on federal public land in violation of a federal rule. State officials argue the federal rule cannot override state hunting law. The Property Clause supplies Congress plenary authority to protect wildlife on federal lands against contrary state measures.
Pavel Petrov acquires oceanfront property subject to state coastal rules preserving public access. He claims the rules destroy all economic use. The rules protect public-trust interests in public lands and therefore do not constitute a total taking.
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, for $975,000. He intended to construct single-family homes on the parcels, which at the time were zoned for such use and required no building permit for development. No portion of the lots qualified as a critical area under then-existing coastal zone legislation. Subsequently, in 1988, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. The legislation established a baseline and prohibited construction of occupable improvements seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of that baseline, directly affecting Lucas's parcels by barring any permanent habitable structures. Lucas filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Act's restrictions effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Following a bench trial, the court determined that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless and ordered the state to pay just compensation in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court's judgment. It accepted the legislature's findings that new construction threatened public resources and concluded that a regulation designed to prevent serious public harm could not constitute a taking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.
View casePatricia Patel seeks a building permit on her coastal lot. The commission conditions approval on a public access easement across the dry sand. The condition serves a legitimate public interest in access to public lands and survives constitutional scrutiny.
The Nollans own a beachfront lot in Ventura County, California. A concrete seawall approximately eight feet high separates the beach portion of their property from the rest of the lot. The historic mean high tide line determines the lot's oceanside boundary. The Nollans originally leased their property with an option to buy, and the building on the lot was a small bungalow totaling 504 square feet. The Nollans' option to purchase was conditioned on their promise to demolish the bungalow and replace it. On February 25, 1982, they submitted a permit application to the California Coastal Commission proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a three-bedroom house. The Commission informed them that the permit would be granted subject to the condition that they allow the public an easement to pass across a portion of their property bounded by the mean high tide line and their seawall. On June 3, 1982, the Nollans filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Ventura County Superior Court to invalidate the access condition. The court remanded the case to the Commission for a full evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the Commission reaffirmed the condition. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the Nollans on statutory grounds and directed that the permit condition be struck. While the Commission's appeal to the California Court of Appeal was pending, the Nollans tore down the bungalow, built the new house, and bought the property. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court. The Nollans appealed to this Court, raising only the constitutional question.
View caseThe public-trust doctrine recognizes state title to lands flowed by tidal waters held in trust for public navigation, fishing, and recreation. It persists in beach areas even after transfer into private ownership unless properly terminated. The doctrine is distinct from servitudes.
Supporting sources
Congress possesses plenary power under the Property Clause to regulate and protect wildlife on federal lands. This authority extends even against contrary state efforts as part of making needful rules concerning federal property.
Supporting sources
Zoning, subdivision controls, and other public land-use regulations are not servitudes. The public-navigation servitude and public-trust doctrine likewise fall outside the Restatement definition of servitudes.
Supporting sources
…its health and safety laws to conform to the diversity of religious belief, but should not have to tailor its management of public lands, Lyng, supra , or its administration of welfare programs, Roy, supra . : Justice O’Connor suggests that “[t]here is nothing talismanic about neutral laws of general…