A New Take on Takings?
Rose Mary Knick was not happy
with her local township. The township passed an ordinance requiring the owners
of private cemeteries to open them to the public. A township official inspected
Knick’s property, determined that certain stones were grave markers, and issued
a violation for failing to hold open the cemetery to the public. Knick disputed
that a cemetery existed on her property, and filed suit alleging that the
ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of private property. However, Knick’s
federal lawsuit was dismissed on longstanding Supreme Court precedent, as she
had not yet sought “just compensation” under state law.
Under the Fifth Amendment,
governments are prohibited from taking private property for public uses
“without just compensation.” Takings under the Fifth Amendment are a concern
whenever local governments physically occupy private property or enact laws
that restrict how private property can be used.
The Supreme Court case of Williamson County v. Regional Planning
Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) has long governed Fifth Amendment
takings claims. In Williamson County,
The Supreme Court held that a property owner has not been denied “just
compensation” for its property unless they have exhausted their state law
remedies to obtain compensation. Now, Knick’s case may upend over 30 years of
Supreme Court precedent.
On appeal to the Third Circuit, Knick
argued that her facial takings claim was exempt from the exhaustion
requirement, and, even if it wasn’t, the court should overlook Williamson County. The Third Circuit disagreed, finding that her
takings claim was not an underlying challenge to the validity of the township’s
ordinance, but only a claim for just compensation. Knick did not allege that that the taking by
the township was invalid (i.e, for lack of a public purpose). If she had, her
takings claim would be exempt from the state law exhaustion requirement and she
could file directly in federal court. The Court held that state law inverse-condemnation
mechanisms are better equipped to value what compensation Knick was owed, and
that she needed to exhaust those remedies first.
Knick has now brought her dispute
with her township to the highest court in the land, and oral arguments are set
for October. While Knick’s case turns on seemingly mundane procedural issues,
the outcome could have a significant impact on local governments. If the
Supreme Court sides with Knick, it will become much easier for property owners
to challenge land use regulations as takings. A property owner could file suit
directly in federal court, even when the government has not yet refused to pay
just compensation. State law remedies (eminent domain/inverse-condemnation
proceedings), already exist to ensure just compensation is paid. Allowing these
claims to proceed in a second forum may result in a proliferation of takings lawsuits.
It will all turn on Knick and her
supposed cemetery.
Post Authored by Kurt Asprooth, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment