In 1972, South Carolina enacted a Coastal Zone Management Act requiring any person using land in a ‘‘critical area’’ to obtain a permit for any uses other than those to which the critical area was devoted when the Act went into effect on September 28, 1977. In 1986, Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, on which he intended to develop a residential subdivision known as ‘‘Beachwood East.’’ Because no portion of those lots was included in a ‘‘critical area’’ at that time, Lucas was not required to obtain a permit. In 1988, however, South Carolina enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which established a ‘‘baseline’’ for the landward-most points of erosion and in effect barred the erection of any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. Lucas filed suit in state court, claiming that the new statute violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by taking property without compensation. He did not challenge South Carolina’s police power; rather, he argued that he was entitled to just compensation. The trial court agreed. Stating that the new Act had permanently deprived Lucas of construction rights and of any reasonable economic use of the lots, the court awarded him $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed, holding that the new Act was a valid use of state police power to protect a legitimate state interest. It stated further that when a state regulation is designed to protect against public harm, no compensation is required under the Fourteenth Amendment. What should the U. S. Supreme Court hold? Explain.