Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
535 U.S. 302 · Decided April 23, 2002 · 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
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was decided on April 23, 2002 by a vote of 6–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice John Paul Stevens 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
- 535 U.S. 302 · 122 S. Ct. 1465 · 152 L. Ed. 2d 517 · 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3028
- Docket number
- 00-1167
- Decided
- April 23, 2002
- Argued
- January 7, 2002
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- John Paul Stevens
- Opinion assigned by
- John Paul Stevens
- 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)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Dissent | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority |
Full case caption
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 2001-040, docket 2001-040-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
- Allen D. Brown and Greg Hayes v. Legal Foundation of Washington
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.
- Linda Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
- San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco
- Susette Kelo v. City of New London
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)
- Larry Dean Dusenbery v. United States
- Kansas v. Michael T. Crane
- Sao Paulo State of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.
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