Is Nectow (1928) a reversal of Euclid (1926)? Is Pennsylvania Coal (1922) a reversal of Mugler (1887)?
<p>In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/623/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Mugler v. Kansas</em> 123 U.S. 623 (1887)</a>, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibition of alcohol is not a taking. (Alcohol property rendered worthless.)</p>
<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/394/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Hadacheck v. Sebastian</em> 239 U.S. 394 (1915)</a> said the zoning prohibits making bricks, but doesn't prohibit collecting the clay, so this one's not a taking. (OK, fair.)</p>
<p>In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/393/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon</em> 260 U.S. 393 (1922)</a>, (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Coal_Co._v._Mahon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia article</a>) the Supreme Court ruled that the Kohler Act not allowing some types of coal mining is a taking. (Coal property rendered worthless.)</p>
<p>In fact, <em>Pennsylvania Coal</em> is often used as an example of police power regulations that &quot;go too far&quot;—when the Kohler Act regulates far less than prohibition.</p>
<hr />
<p>In <em>Euclid v. Ambler</em> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co." rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.</em>, 272 U.S. 365 (1926)</a>, the Court ruled that a property split between multiple zoning districts, though now impossible to develop, is a valid use of police power. (Value reduced significantly.)</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nectow_v._City_of_Cambridge" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Nectow v. Cambridge</em> 277 U.S. 183 (1928)</a> said that a <em>re</em>-zoning of a property and interfering with its sale is a deprivation of property and NOT a valid use of police power. (Value reduced to zero for one sale.)</p>
<hr />
<p>Are these considered reversals? There are more examples of the Supreme Court going back and forth on these issues. Why does the Court do this?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Are these considered reversals?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. All of the cases cited are still good law.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_takings_in_the_United_States#:%7E:text=In%20United%20States%20constitutional%20law,or%20value%20of%20their%20property." rel="nofollow noreferrer">constitutional law of regulatory takings</a> in the United States is that a regulation of how property is used is not a &quot;taking&quot; unless it eliminates all economic uses of the land and is not a valid use of police power. If property still has economic value, even if it dramatically reduced in value, or if the property is taken in an exercise of police powers, it is not a taking for constitutional purposes.</p>
<p>None of the cited cases are contrary to that rule.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are more examples of the Supreme Court going back and forth on
these issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The examples cited are not examples of the Supreme Court going back and forth on these issues. All of them are consistent with the current and existing rule of law. But there are indeed examples of the Supreme Court going back and forth on issues, for example, on the specificity required in a valid complaint in an ordinary case in federal court, and on the jurisdiction of states to impose sales taxes on businesses without a brick and mortar presence in a state.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why does the Court do this?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court, with the experience of hindsight and new personnel determines that its previous decision was wrongly decided.</p>

united-states constitutional-law