▁profession ▁or ▁impro ving ▁the ▁quality ▁of ▁legal ▁services ." ▁Su it um ▁v . ▁T ah oe ▁Regional ▁Pl anning ▁Agency ▁( 1 9 9 7 ): ▁A ▁un anim ous ▁Court ▁held ▁that ▁property ▁own ers ▁do ▁not ▁have ▁to ▁attempt ▁to ▁sell ▁their ▁transfer able ▁development ▁rights ▁before ▁they ▁can ▁claim ▁a ▁regul atory ▁taking ▁of ▁property . ▁Pal azz olo ▁v . ▁Rh ode ▁Island ▁( 2 0 0 1 ): ▁The ▁Court ▁held ▁that ▁property ▁own ers ▁may ▁challenge ▁land ▁use ▁restrictions ▁that ▁were ▁en act ed ▁before ▁they ▁acquired ▁the ▁property . ▁Justice ▁Kennedy ▁wrote ▁that ▁“ Future ▁gener ations , ▁too , ▁have ▁a ▁right ▁to ▁challenge ▁un reason able ▁limitations ▁on ▁the ▁use ▁and ▁value ▁of ▁land .” ▁Rap anos ▁v . ▁United ▁States ▁( 2 0 0 6 ): ▁The ▁Court ▁rejected ▁the ▁Army ▁Corps ▁of ▁Engine ers ’ ▁broad ▁definition ▁of ▁wet lands ▁subject ▁to ▁federal ▁juris diction , ▁but ▁left ▁un answer ed ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁whether ▁the ▁phrase ▁" w aters ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States " ▁in ▁the ▁C lean ▁Water ▁Act ▁includes ▁a ▁wet land ▁that ▁at ▁least ▁occasionally ▁em pt ies ▁into ▁a ▁trib ut ary ▁of ▁a ▁tradition ally ▁navig able ▁water . ▁S ack ett ▁v . ▁Environment al ▁Prote ction ▁Agency ▁( 2 0 1 2 ): ▁Ar gu ed ▁by ▁PL F ▁att orney ▁Dam ien ▁M . ▁Schiff , ▁the ▁case ▁challeng ed ▁E PA ' s ▁practice ▁of ▁un il ater ally ▁as