Abstract
This paper responds to Professor Richard Lazarus's recent and longstanding criticisms of the public trust doctrine (PTD). I claim Richard misunderstands the non-absolutist nature of the doctrine, which seeks accommodation between public and private property. Although he acknowledges the value of the PTD as a defense to claims of private takings, he thinks that the background principles defense it affords government regulators is a static doctrine. And he fails to see that the PTD hardly equips courts with the authority to displace legislative and administrative decision makers. Instead, as epitomized in the well-known Mono Lake decision, the doctrine -- an inherent limit on all sovereigns -- requires those more representative branches to exercise their discretion in protecting trust resources from destruction or monopolization.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.