Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
Citation: 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982)
Facts
New York enacted a law requiring landlords to allow cable television companies to install cable facilities on their rental buildings. Jean Loretto purchased an apartment building and discovered that Teleprompter had installed cable equipment on the roof and exterior walls. She brought a class action, arguing the required installation constituted an uncompensated taking of her property.
Issue
Does a state law that requires a landlord to permit a permanent physical installation of cable equipment on her property constitute a per se taking requiring just compensation?
Holding
The Supreme Court (Marshall, J.) held that any permanent physical occupation of property authorized by the government constitutes a taking requiring just compensation, regardless of how minor the intrusion or how significant the public benefit. The occupation need not be substantial.
Rule
Per se physical taking rule: a permanent physical occupation of property by the government, or authorized by government action, is a categorical taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, without regard to the extent of intrusion, the public interest served, or the economic impact on the owner.
Significance
Loretto establishes the categorical rule for permanent physical occupations, creating one of two bright-line per se takings tests (alongside Lucas’s total-wipeout rule). It reflects the traditional common law view that the right to exclude is the most fundamental strand of the property-rights bundle. The case is taught alongside Penn Central and Lucas to map the full regulatory takings doctrine.