ply more stringent scrutiny to the regulation's infringement of non-economic property rights.9
This case is important not only because the Court emphasized the importance of non-economic property rights, but also because it used the word "fundamental" in that context. Whenever a restriction of a right or interest is deemed "fundamental," such restriction generally receives heightened scrutiny. The term carries particularly strong historical connotations in the context of property rights, where it is reminiscent of the Lochner era. The Court has yet to hold that the "right to exclude," or any other property right, is a fundamental right, referring to it instead as a fundamental element or component of the generalized property right. Nevertheless, in view of the importance the Court appears to be placing on the rights of property owners generally, its repeated use of a word that carries such powerful connotations may indicate a renewed willingness to increase the protection given property rights.10 MOBILE HOMES
...