Vandevere v. Lloyd, 644 F.3d 957

Vandevere, McCombs, Hollier, and Jent hold Alaska entry permits and shore leases to fish salmon in Upper Cook Inlet.
Board regulations since 1996 shortened seasons, narrowed areas, and shifted emphasis toward conservation, reducing permit/lease value.
Plaintiffs sued the Commissioner of Fisheries in 2007, alleging takings without compensation and due process violations.
District court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo per Ward v. Ryan.
Alaska law authorizes the Board and the Commission to regulate entry permits and submerged-land leases; entry permits are use privileges, and leases convey limited interests.
Leases contain contractual waivers and broad reservation of regulatory power; plaintiffs contend these reduce protection against regulatory takings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do entry permits constitute property under the Takings Clause?	Vandevere argues permits are property with value and transferability.	Vanek holds entry permits are not property interests under state law.	Not property; Vanek controls.
Did the leasehold interests confer protected property or were they waived as to takings claims?	Leases create a property-like interest that could be compensable if reg regulation reduces value.	Waiver clauses in the leases bar takings claims and regulation of activities falls outside compensation.	Waiver defeats the takings claim; no merits reached.
Did the challenged regulations violate substantive due process?	Regulations are arbitrary and irrational, infringing due process.	Regulations rationally relate to conservation and sustainability.	Not a due process violation; statute bears substantial relation to goals.

Vanek v. State, 193 P.3d 283, 193 P.3d 283 (Alaska 2008) (entry permits are not property interests under Alaska law)
Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807 (9th Cir.2010) (two-step Takings framework under Lucas/Craft; state law governs property right, federal law governs process)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (property rights and regulation; background principles determine if a taking requires compensation)
Craft v. United States, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (state law defines property rights; process due under federal law)
Schneider v. California Dept. of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (state-created licenses can be treated as non-property for Takings Clause purposes)
Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1946) (courts a tenant may waive rights via contract; compensation may be contractually extinguished)
Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 424 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1976) (takings waiver concepts in lease contexts)