Byrne, J. Peter2019-09-252019-09-252010-10-26200700461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175721"The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use decisions in the absence of other legislative or administrative checks on local discretion. Such judicial review should focus on decisions reflecting distortions in the local political process." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderland ethicsclimate ethicslawPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle