The Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency case in 2001 revolved around a dispute over land-use restrictions imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The TRPA had placed temporary moratoriums on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin to study environmental impacts, which property owners argued constituted a taking of their property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of TRPA stating that these were not permanent takings but rather temporary limitations on property use for regulatory purposes and did not require compensation under the Constitution. This decision underscored that courts must consider factors such as duration and economic impact when determining whether government action constitutes a "taking" requiring compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al., Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and O'Connor, argued that a temporary moratorium on land development should be considered as a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. They disagreed with the majority's distinction between temporary physical invasions and temporary regulatory takings, arguing that both types of government action can deprive property owners of valuable use rights without compensation. The dissenters also criticized the majority for focusing too much on whether there was an interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations rather than considering if any economic value had been taken from property owners due to regulations imposed by government agencies.