More (or Less) on Lingle

On Monday, I posted this altogether too-long explanation of the Court’s sudden and unanimous (and long overdue) about-face in Lingle, in which it unceremoniously interred the “substantially advances” takings test that Justice Powell had infelicitously coined 25 years ago in Agins.

Today’s Washington Post has a shorter, easier-to-read version of my summary.

And Mark Tushnet has penned the pithiest and most succinct translation of all. Gilda Radner, RIP.

My exegesis thus is rendered largely obsolete — much like the Agins test itself. Nevertheless, anyone wanting to read about how Lingle may affect the fate of the Nollan/Dolan tests as applied to “monetary exactions” — and I know there must be at least a half-dozen of you out there — will still have to turn to the final paragraph of my post, and to the Comments, in which Richard Samp and Scott Ballenger offer some interesting alternative perspectives.