Wednesday, July 10, 2019 Julie Tappendorf
You may recall that we briefly reported on this case the day it was issued, with the promise that we would provide more details on the ruling in a future blog post. So, here it is!
In a dispute that arose over a
cemetery, the U.S. Supreme Court recently buried longstanding precedent and
held that takings-claim plaintiffs may now sue directly in federal court. The
controversial ruling came down in Knickv. Township of Scott, where a cemetery owner claimed that a township
ordinance requiring her to keep her land “open and accessible to the general public
during daylight hours” constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth
Amendment.
Two lower federal courts struck down
the plaintiff’s claim following the precedent of Williamson Cty. Reg’l Planning Com. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City.
The Court in Williamson County held
that property owners first had to “exhaust” all available remedies and litigate
in state court before the claim could be brought in federal court.
Additionally, the Williamson County Court
reasoned that the “Fifth Amendment proscribes takings without just
compensation,” and thus, no constitutional violation occurs until the
compensation is denied to the plaintiff. The Williamson County Court relied heavily on earlier 19th
Century precedent where governments may avoid paying compensation at the time
of the property deprivation so long as they make a “reasonable, certain, and
adequate” mechanism for recovering compensation available. Critics of the Williamson County stated that “Williamson County [has] essentially
demoted the Takings Clause to a second-class citizen among the Bill of Rights,”
because “no other constitutional right is subjected to a such a legal
labyrinth.”
The majority in Knick overruled Williamson
County, and reasoned that the “state-litigation requirement imposes an
unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs.” Further, following the precedent
set forth in Jacobs v. United States and
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church
v. Cty. of L.A., the Court concluded that a constitutional violation
originates from the property deprivation itself, not so much from the denial of
compensation that arises in state court later down the line. The majority
provides some—perhaps cold—assurance that the government will not be hamstrung
by injunctions from taking property in the future, when it states “as long as
just compensation remedies are available…injunctive relief will be foreclosed.”
Lastly, the majority addressed the concerns raised by the dissenters over its
break with longstanding precedent, by reasoning that the quality, workability
of the current rule established, and its consistency with other decisions.
In summary, the Court’s decision in Knick is a huge break with past
precedent and will now allow takings-claim plaintiffs to bring a §1983 civil
rights action directly in federal court. In addition, the decision may create
an increase in takings-claim litigation over existing land use regulations. If
it was not as obvious before, the Knick
decision warrants governments carefully considering how existing and new land
use regulation potentially create a taking. The further implications on local
governments are not yet clear; however, local governments will still most
likely be able to move forward in taking property without the hindrance of
injunctions, so long as they are prepared to litigate the claim in federal
court.
Post Authored by David Silverman and Rain Montero, Ancel Glink
