On November 3,2003,the U.S.Supreme Court declined to review a South Carolina Supreme Court decision that denied the claim of WLF’s client that he is entitled to compensation for land-use regulations that have rendered his waterfront roperty worthless.This was the second time that the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In 2001, the High Court overturned the South Carolina court’s first decision in the case and directed that the case be reconsidered in light of intervening recisions under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.In its second decision,the South Carolina Supreme Court held that no compensation is required so long as land-use restrictions further the State’s interest in protecting wetlands,regardless of the landowner’s reasonable expectations. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case a second time, WLF argued that while South Carolina may take steps to protect its wetlands,it should not be permitted to impose the entire cost of those laws on a handful of landowners.