October Term 2004 · Docket 04-163

Should courts apply the rational basis test to regulatory takings claims?

the sides that brought the case seek a stricter judicial review standard for property regulations. the opposing sides defend the current rational basis approach.

Official caption
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Bennett argued federal courts have deferentially reviewed legislation affecting property for seventy years.

    Mr. Kneedler stated the rational basis standard goes to the heart of the judicial role.

    Mr. Stewart identified the issue as the content of the regulatory takings doctrine.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the standard for reviewing economic regulations that affect property rights. the sides that brought the case argue for a higher level of scrutiny. the opposing sides support the existing rational basis test.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to adopt the substantially advances test for regulatory takings claims.

the opposing sides want the Court to maintain the rational basis standard for reviewing economic legislation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the substantially advances test is grounded in long-recognized legal principles.

the opposing sides argue the rational basis standard is central to the judicial role in a democracy.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice O'Connor asked if discrete property rights justify higher scrutiny than general economic regulation.

Justice Scalia questioned why the Court repeatedly states certain legal principles.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of judicial review for property regulations. It determines how strictly courts examine state economic laws affecting private property interests.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON