kniCk opEns THE fEdEral CourT doors To sTaTE Takings liTiganTs
Eminent Domain Section
Continued from page 32
arguing, like Justice Rehnquist,
that confining takings litigants to
a state forum relegated the Fifth
Amendment’s protections to the
“status of a poor relation,” 4 insofar
as all other claims grounded in the
Bill of Rights are actionable in
federal court.
The federal court barrier was,
however, finally lifted in June,
when the Supreme Court issued
its opinion in Knick v. Township of
Scott. 5 In Knick, the landowner
alleged a local ordinance requiring
her to keep her property open
to the public violated the Fifth
Amendment. Instead of seeking
compensation under state inverse
condemnation procedures, she filed
for declaratory relief, asserting the
ordinance constituted an unlawful
taking. When that relief was denied,
she then proceeded to federal
court, seeking compensation.
She lost in both the federal
district and circuit courts, based
upon Williamson County. The
Supreme Court then granted
certiorari to revisit its rule. Writing
for the Majority, Chief Justice
Roberts acknowledged that a
property owner has an actionable
Fifth Amendment claim the moment
the government takes property
without paying for it, and that
“exhaustion of state remedies” was
not a prerequisite to relief under
§ 1983. The Court found the
Williamson County requirement
“unworkable,” calling it “a rule
in search of a justification for over
30 years.”
As a result of Knick, private
property owners alleging deprivations
by state or local action finally get
their day in federal court, consistent
with citizens asserting free speech,
due process, unreasonable seizure,
and other constitutional claims. The
Court’s decision puts to rest any
doubt that the Takings Clause is on
equal footing with the other protections
inherent in the Bill of Rights. n
1
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago,
166 U.S. 226 (1897).
2 473 U.S. 172 (1985).
3 545 U.S. 323 (2005).
4 See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S.
374, 392 (1994).
5 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019).
Author: Ryan C. Reese - Moore
Bowman & Reese, P.A.
Ronald E. Bush
Holly B. Platter
ConfLiCT resoLuTion
mediation & arbitration services
u
EXPERIENCE
u
COMMON SENSE
7
KNOWLEDGE
We are committed to Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is the
most efficient forum for resolution of litigated and non-litigated
matters. Our extensive litigation experience allows us to assist litigants
with a pragmatic valuation of their case based on past results in similar
cases, the potential jury pool, and the appellate climate in which any
verdict would be reviewed. Our active litigation practices keep us well
apprised of the environment in which matters are currently litigated
and the myriad of nuances that drive litigation risks.
To schedule a mediation or arbitration call 813.228.7000
or www.bgrplaw.com for online calendar.
B ush G raziano r ice & P latter , P . a .
TRIAL LAWY ERS
SEPT - OCT 2019
|
HCBA LAWYER
33