The speed of the internet: we were all set to summarize our thoughts on the South Carolina Supreme Court's opinion in Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, No. 2011-194211 (Jan. 9, 2013), a case involving equal protection, substantive due process, and takings claims, when Dean Patty Salkin at the Law of the Land blog beat us to it. See "SC Supreme Court Finds No Takings After Council Denies Rezoning for Golf Club Property" for the details.
This one thing caught our eye in the opinion. The court held that the "substantially advance a legitimate state interest" test, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Lingle v. Chevron USA Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) held was a test of substantive due process and not one of takings law, was the same thing as the "rational/conceivable basis" test. In other words, the term "substantially advance" is mere hortatory fluff, and really means only "not arbitrary and capricious." To us, those words sound different, but what do we know.
Oh well, it doesn't really matter since the court held first that the the plaintiff did not have a property interest in the zoning remaining the same, and thus did not establish the predicate to a due process claim of having property that was alleged to have been deprived without due process.
Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, No. 2011-194211 (S.C. Jan. 9, 2013)
