United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. case brief

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. case brief

474 U.S. 121 (1985)

CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner United States appealed a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed an order granting an injunction that prohibited respondent developer from dumping fill materials in an area designated as "wetlands" under 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(c) (1978) without first obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1344.

FACTS: Petitioner obtained an injunction that prohibited respondent developer from dumping fill material in an area determined to be "wetlands" under 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(c) (1978), without first obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (Act), 33 U.S.C.S. § 1344. 

DISCUSSION

• Holding that the Corps' construction of the Act was reasonable, and that the mere implementation of regulations interpreting the Act was not an U.S. Const. amend. V "taking," the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. 
• The Court held that a constitutional "takings" analysis was inappropriate, where respondent had not tried to obtain a permit, where there was no evidence that the denial of a permit would deny respondent economically viable use of its land, and where relief at law was available should a taking occur. 
• The Court held that the Corps' extension of its permit-granting authority under § 1344 to wetlands adjacent to "navigable waters" was not an unreasonable interpretation of the Act, given Congress' broad definition of navigable waters as "waters of the United States," and the Act's purpose of restoring the "integrity of the Nation's waters."

CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, because petitioner United States was entitled to an injunction to prohibit respondent developer from filling "wetlands" adjacent to "waters of the United States," since the issuance of regulations requiring a permit for such use was not a "taking" of property, and the Army Corps of Engineers had authority to require a permit under a reasonable construction of the Clean Water Act.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?