Text Assist for Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Flowchart
The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions prevents a state from imposing a
condition that is unrelated to the purpose to be furthered. If the
government conditions the use or regulation of an owner’s property on the
receipt of a public benefit, the government must compensate the owner
unless:
1) There is an essential nexus between the legitimate state interest and
the condition; and
2) The nature and extent of the condition are roughly proportional to the
harm prevented by the regulation.
For example:
1) A school may not discharge a teacher for exercising his First Amendment
right to free speech. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563
(1968).
2) A state may not refuse to pay unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day
Adventist who rejects a job that requires he to work on Saturdays.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
Discretionary government benefit:
These are benefits that the government may grant or revoke based on a
reasonable analysis of societal needs.
Government confers the benefit with conditions
Below are two examples of a benefit with a condition attached. As you
can see, Nollan’s condition was found unconstitutional, while PruneYard’s
was acceptable.
1) In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),
Nollan wanted to expand his beachfront house and applied for a permit. The
California Coastal Commission replied with a conditional approval: Nollan
could expand on the condition that he grant an easement to the
general public to use the beach in front of his house. The Supreme Court
found that such a "condition" on a building permit constituted a taking for
which Nollan must be compensated.
2) In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the
Supreme Court upheld that California Supreme Court’s ruling that owners of
private shopping centers may not exclude persons who with to engage in
nondisruptive speech and petitioning activities. So, although the Court
eliminated part of the property owners right to select users of their
property, the Court held it was not a taking because the owners could not
demonstrate that an unchecked right to exclude others was a basic part of
the economic value of the shopping center.
Is the condition that recipient must relinquish a constitutional right?
Examples of cases in which the Court found the individual had to give up
a constitutional right without adequate nexus to the desired ends:
1) A school may not discharge a teacher for exercising his First Amendment
right to free speech. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563
(1968).
2) A state may not refuse to pay unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day
Adventist who rejects a job that requires he to work on Saturdays.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
Is there a substantial relationship ("essential nexus") between the benefit and the condition?
For example, in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S.
825 (1987), had the Coastal Commission created a nexus between the building
code restriction and the beach easement, they might have succeeded in
imposing such a condition. For example, if the Coastal Commission had
created a nexus between the limitation on building size (stating that it’s
for the public’s aesthetic enjoyment) with the granting of a beach easement
(also for the public’s aesthetic enjoyment), then that condition would be
acceptable because "the public’s aesthetic enjoyment" is the "nexus" between
the two issues. But the easement at issue in Nollan was not tied
together with the building restriction and was therefore an Unconstitutional
Condition.
End of Text Assist