David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
505 U.S. 1003 · Decided June 29, 1992 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council was decided on June 29, 1992 by a vote of 6–3. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 505 U.S. 1003 · 112 S. Ct. 2886 · 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 · 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4537
- Docket number
- 91-453
- Decided
- June 29, 1992
- Argued
- March 2, 1992
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Antonin Scalia
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice David H. Souter | Jurisdictional dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority |
Full case caption
David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
SCDB identifiers: case 1991-118, docket 1991-118-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- John K. Yee v. City of Escondido
- Florence Dolan v. City of Tigard
- J. Paul Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission
- United States v. Sperry Corporation
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch
- Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Diane Griffin v. United States
- Robert C. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail
- John K. Yee v. City of Escondido
- Terry Foucha v. LouisianaLaw held unconstitutional
- Teofilo Medina, Jr. v. California
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error