The federalist dimension of regulatory takings jurisprudence

Federalism concerns, underappreciated in the takings literature, play an important role in shaping the Supreme Court's takings jurisprudence. The Takings Clause does not guarantee any particular property rights; instead, the Clause protects primarily against change in background state law. As a result, the nature and scope of constitutional protection depends heavily on background principles of state law in effect at the time of a challenged enactment. Federalism concerns, therefore, prevent the Supreme Court from articulating and enforcing a comprehensive national takings standard. Instead, the Court's role in the constitutional scheme is to articulate categorical rules that address difficulties that cut across state lines, while leaving primary responsibility for monitoring local land use regulation to state law and state courts. State courts, in turn, should view the Court's Penn Central balancing test not as a finely calibrated analysis of constitutional limits, but as a broad delegation of authority.