October Term 2000 · Docket 99-2047
Does a later landowner receive compensation for pre-existing wetland restrictions?
A property owner seeks payment for lost development rights. The state denies liability for rules enacted before his purchase.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Palazzolo's counsel cited Armstrong v. United States. They argued the Just Compensation Clause bars unfair burdens. They stated the government cannot force one person to pay for public needs.
Rhode Island's counsel emphasized the timing of the regulations. They noted the rules existed before Palazzolo bought the land. They argued he assumed these risks when he purchased the property.
Palazzolo's counsel addressed the scope of the property interest. They asked if courts should look only at wetlands. They suggested the upland area matters for the compensation claim.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 8-9 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 8-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Anthony Palazzolo bought 18 acres in Rhode Island. State rules barred him from filling wetlands. He claims this regulation took his property without just compensation. Rhode Island argues the rules predated his ownership. The Court must decide if the Just Compensation Clause applies to later buyers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 8-9 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 8-9
What each side wants
Palazzolo wants financial compensation for lost development rights.
Rhode Island wants to deny compensation for pre-existing rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
What each side says
Palazzolo argues the government cannot force one person to bear public burdens.
Rhode Island argues the regulation existed before Palazzolo owned the land.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
What the justices asked
Does the Just Compensation Clause protect later landowners?
How do courts define the relevant property interest?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 8-9 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 8-9
Why it matters
This case defines who receives compensation for land-use restrictions. It determines whether buyers inherit compensation rights for pre-existing rules. The outcome shapes property rights and government regulation power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 8-9 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 8-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 22-22 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 22-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 14-2 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 14-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 14-26 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 14-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-26 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-26
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.