Posted on 06/21/2019 8:05:39 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 5-4 to overturn a decades-old precedent on property rights, a decision that marks a victory for conservatives.
The previous 1985 ruling that found that an individual whose property is taken by a local government cannot file a federal suit under the Fifth Amendment until that challenge fails in state court.
But on Friday the justices ruled along ideological lines to reverse that precedent, finding that the requirement “imposes an unjustifiable burden,” conflicts with other similar rulings and “must be overruled.”
“A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
“That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities,” Roberts continued.
But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and there may bring his claim in federal court.”
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts on the majority decision.
Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – the liberal members of the court – dissented.
Does this reverse Kelo?
L
How about that? John Roberts joined with the conservatives. The John Roberts who allegedly dislikes 5-4 decisions was on the majority in a 5-4 decision.
I cannot quite make the connection but there seems to be some symmetry to their ruling on Fed and State double jeopardy and this ruling.
This seems so obvious to me. More proof that Liberalism is tyranny.
Five votes for the People, four votes for a bigger, and more powerful Government. Perfect example of the philosophical breakout of the current Court.
wrote the decision , too.
Tyrants can read the Constitution? I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
RGB outvoted again. Now we wait for next Monday ( and Tuesday & Wednesday?)
More good news
I see it as getting bolder on overturning bad/incorrect precedent—which is a very good thing.
He's saving up his chits for the big decisions, abortion, immigration, Second Amendment...
“I cannot quite make the connection but there seems to be some symmetry to their ruling on Fed and State double jeopardy and this ruling.”
Agreed.
Seems to follow that separate branches and levels of government have separate and unique laws and rules that can be violated.
I don’t think so, because Kelo did involve compensation. What was at issue there was whether government seizing (and compensating) property to use, not for direct public use (i.e. a road), but to give to a private developer so as to increase the economic value (i.e. the tax revenue) coming from that property, was a valid taking. The court decided that it was, i.e. that *anything that you own* could simply be taken from you and given to another, with compensation, if the other would put it to “better use” as determined by the government doing the taking. So much for the idea of property rights. Sandra Day O’Connor, IIRC, wrote a bitter dissent and then resigned from the court shortly after.
Now to overrule the finding that the state via zoning and conservation laws can impair up to 90% of the value of a property without it being considered an Article V “taking” thus requiring compensation for the owner.
How about that? John Roberts joined with the conservatives.
...
Will FReepers remember?
Kelo was decided in 2005. It would be interesting to learn how this decision affected Kelo.
How does this affect property taken by the federal government under the same circumstances?
Question. How does this logic apply, if it has not been already to other Constitutional issues? So if a state violates the 5th I can go straight to the Fed bypassing state appeals. Does it work that way on the other amendments now? Will this ruling change that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.