Mr. Thomas, along with his colleagues in Damon Key’s Land Use Group, is one of the preeminent land use lawyers in Hawaii.
He focuses on issues involving appeals, regulatory takings, eminent domain, water rights, land use (zoning and planning), shoreline issues, navigational servitudes, and voting rights.
He has tried cases and appeals in all levels of Hawaii courts and administrative agencies including county planning commissions, county zoning boards of appeals, and the State Board of Land and Natural Resources. He has also tried cases and appeals in California and the federal courts, including the Court of Federal Claims.
Mr. Thomas received his LLM, with honors, from Columbia Law School where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, and his JD from the University of Hawaii School of Law where served as editor of the Law Review.
Robert has been selected by his peers to be included in Best Lawyers in Americain eminent domain and condemnation law, and is a frequent speaker on land use and eminent domain issues nationwide. He has published articles in the Journal of Legal Education, the University of Hawaii Law Review, and other scholarly journals. His latest publications are Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 17 (Feb. 2006), and the Hawaii chapter in Law and Procedure of Eminent Domain in the 50 States.
Robert is the Managing Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation Hawaii Center, a non-profit legal foundation dedicated to protecting property rights and individual liberties.
Robert also authors a legal blog, inversecondemnation.com, where he posts articles and commentary on land use and property rights issues.
epresentative cases:
Constitutional law, election law, and voting rights
Represented homeowners in appeal of Kauai government’s challenge to citizen-enacted real property tax relief charter amendment. County of Kauai ex rel. Nakazawa v. Baptiste, 115 Haw. 15, 165 P.3d 916 (2007). More about the case from the Wall Street Journal here.
Represented property owner in appeal that resulted in the rejection of “zoning by initiative” in Hawaii. Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989). Prepared amicus brief on the same issue in Lum Yip Kee, Ltd. v. City & County of Honolulu, 767 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989).
Regulatory takings, navigable waters
Secured the right to compensation for regulatory taking of private waterway adjacent to San Francisco Bay; one of the few cases recognizing the government’s obligation to pay for a taking of navigable waters. Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 757 (1999); United States v. Alameda Gateway, Ltd., 213 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000) petition for cert. withdrawn (Aug. 2000).
Protected the privacy of a navigable lagoon against encroachment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the public in multi-jurisdictional litigation. Boone v. United States, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’g 725 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Haw. 1989) and 743 F. Supp. 1367 (D. Haw. 1989).
Appellate law
Coastal Zone and Special Management Area permits
Represented property owner defending a Special Management Area (shoreline) use permit from from due process and equal protection challenges. Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City & County of Honolulu, 773 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1989).
Eminent domain and condemnation
Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) (amicus brief supporting a property owner seeking to establish a standard of review for eminent domain abuse).
Representing Big Island property owner defending multiple eminent domain actions.
Regulatory takings, inverse condemnation
Secured summary judgment in attempted regulatory taking of vested Shoreline Management Act and development permits. Maunalua Associates v. City & County of Honolulu (Haw., First Cir. 2002).
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (prepared amicus brief defining the legal standard for regulatory takings). More about the case from the Honolulu Advertiser.
Asserted developer’s standing to contest a regulatory taking. Kaiser Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 898 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1990)cert. denied, 499 U.S. 954 (1991)
Water rights
Defending the rights of Maui farmers to continue to receive agricultural water from the east Maui ditch in administrative proceedings before the State of Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources.
Land use and vested rights
Protected vested development permit from arbitrary revocation before the Maui Planning Commission.