{"title":"Two Wrongs? Correcting Professor Lazarus's Misunderstanding of the Public Trust Doctrine","authors":"M. Blumm","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2735147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":81171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental law (Northwestern School of Law)","volume":"46 1","pages":"481"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2735147","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental law (Northwestern School of Law)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2735147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
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.