In the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection et al., 2009, a non-profit corporation challenged a beach restoration project in Florida that added sand to eroded beaches. The organization argued that this action deprived them of their rights as waterfront property owners without just compensation, violating the Takings Clause under both state and federal law. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc., stating that there was no violation because landowners did not lose any property; they still had access to and unobstructed view of the water even after renourishment efforts were completed by adding new sand to public lands seaward from their properties' boundary line at mean high-water mark (a fluctuating boundary). Thus, it was held that such actions do not constitute a 'taking' requiring compensation under U.S Constitution's Fifth Amendment or its equivalent in Florida's constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Stop The Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection et al., Justice Breyer argued that there was no need to decide whether a judicial decision could ever constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment because this case did not present such an issue. He believed that the majority's discussion on this point was unnecessary and potentially confusing dicta. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of Florida law regarding beachfront property rights and suggested they should have certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification instead of making assumptions about state law themselves.