Abstract The late Justice Antonin Scalia sensibly pushed his powerful originalist agenda as a bulwark against activist justices of any persuasion from enacting their policy preferences into law. But while this commitment to originalism may explain what the justices should not do, it does not explain, affirmatively, how they should interpret constitutional texts in accordance with the originalist agenda. One area in which this is most critical is the law of takings, which polices the boundary line between private rights and public power. Here it is necessary to integrate explicit constitutional provisions dealing with the terms “taken,” “private property,” “just compensation,” “public use,” and the implied “police power” into a coherent whole. The law of takings is relatively straightforward when the government takes private property into public possession. But it is far more difficult to explicate when private parties retain some interests in property after the government either occupies or regulates the use and disposition of the rest. Justice Scalia’s application of takings law to such cases of divided interests has fallen short in four key contexts: the permitting process in Nollan; rent control in Pennell; development rights in Lucas; and environmental protection schemes in Stop the Beach Renourishment. In these cases, Justice Scalia often reached the right result for the wrong reasons, often on ad hoc grounds. The correct analysis requires a far more thoroughgoing protection of private property interest in the context of both regulatory and possessory takings. This article explains how he should have handled these missed opportunities.

中文翻译：

---

错失良机，善意：安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官的决定

摘要已故的大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚明智地将其强大的原始主义议程作为反对任何说服力的激进主义大法官的堡垒，将其政策偏向于法律。但是，尽管对原始主义的承诺可以解释大法官不应该做的事情，但却不能肯定地解释大法官应如何根据原始主义议程解释宪法文本。最重要的领域之一是取用法则，该法则规定了私人权利与公共权力之间的界限。在这里，有必要将涉及“被夺取”，“私有财产”，“公正补偿”，“公共用途”和隐含的“警察权力”的明确宪法条款整合为一个连贯的整体。当政府将私有财产纳入公共财产时，获取法则相对简单。但是，在政府占领或规范其余财产的使用和处置后，私人当事方保留财产的某些权益时，要进行解释就困难得多。在以下四个关键情况下，斯卡利亚大法官对这类利益分割案件的准据法适用性不足：诺兰的许可程序；佩内尔的租金控制；卢卡斯的发展权；和“停止海滩娱乐”中的环保计划。在这些情况下，斯卡利亚大法官常常出于特殊原因，由于错误的原因往往会得出正确的结果。正确的分析要求在管理和拥有财产的背景下，更加彻底地保护私有财产权益。