In the 1986 case Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pennsylvania's Subsidence Act, which required coal companies to leave a certain amount of coal unmined to prevent subsidence (the sinking or settling of land) in residential areas. The Keystone Bituminous Coal Association argued that this constituted a "taking" without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause because it prevented them from mining up to half their coal reserves. However, by a 5-4 decision, the court held that there was no taking as long as an owner retained some economically viable use for his property and noted that preventing significant damage to homes and communities served a substantial public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, Justice William Rehnquist argued that Pennsylvania's Subsidence Act constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment. He contended that by requiring coal companies to leave 50% of their coal in place as support for surface structures, the state was essentially appropriating private resources for public use. The majority had ruled this regulation did not constitute a 'taking' because it prevented harm to society and maintained status quo; however, Rehnquist countered that preventing societal harm does not automatically exempt an action from being considered a 'taking'. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on ‘reciprocity of advantage’, arguing that benefits accruing to mining companies were incidental and didn't offset losses imposed by regulations. Lastly, he criticized how courts evaluated whether government actions amounted to takings - focusing too much on character rather than economic impact or interference with investment-backed expectations.