Constitutional Law — takings

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Constitutional Law — takings

A city’s ban on smoking in taverns does not violate the Takings Clause.

“The bar owners have clearly established a negative economic impact on their respective businesses. Regardless of whether they are facing insolvency, they have demonstrated a decrease in sales since the smoking ordinance went into effect. But mere loss of future profits is a ‘slender reed’ upon which to rest a takings claim. Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66 (1979) (‘Prediction of profitability is essentially a matter of reasoned speculation that courts are not especially competent to perform.’). This is particularly true when an otherwise weak economy supplies an obvious potential confounding factor. Further, it is inappropriate to consider only the loss due to prohibited uses, without also considering ‘the many profitable uses to which the property could still be put.’ First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cty., 482 U.S. 304, 331 (1987).”

Affirmed.

13-1629 Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Kanne, J.