Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases

Now we await the 12 remaining opinions. 4 per day next week?

I say at least six next Tuesday.

Kelo was effectively abrogated. In the wake of the 2005 decision, 45 States have passed legislation or Constitutional Amendments that prevents or severely limits the type of taking that occurred in Kelo.

Do you happen to know which 5 have not? I suspect my state (California) is one of them.

It doesn't seem like a lot of folks have read through this decision yet, which is hardly surprising given that it's only a few hours old.

What this all boils down to is that previous precedent precluded a federal suit against a taking until all state legal proceedings around the action have been 'exhausted'. If the plaintiff whose property had been 'taken' loses at state court, then federal action is also precluded.

To quote the opinion:

The Williamson County Court anticipated that if the property owner failed to secure just compensation under state law in state court, he would be able to bring a "ripe" federal takings claim in federal court. See id., at 194. But as we later held in San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U. S. 323 (2005), a state court's resolution of a claim for just compensation under state law generally has preclusive effect in any subsequent federal suit. The takings plaintiff thus finds himself in a Catch-22: He cannot go to federal court without going to state court first; but if he goes to state court and loses, his claim will be barred in federal court. The federal claim dies aborning.

Further:

The San Remo preclusion trap should tip us off that the state-litigation requirement rests on a mistaken view of the Fifth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, after all, guarantees "a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials," and the settled rule is that "exhaustion of state remedies 'is not a prerequisite to an action under [42 U. S. C.] §1983.' " Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 480 (1994) (quoting Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 501 (1982)). But the guarantee of a federal forum rings hollow for takings plaintiffs, who are forced to litigate their claims in state court.

We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. 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. 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 therefore may bring his claim in federal court under §1983 at that time.

This is significant, but moreso is the ruling that Williamson County Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City was overturned. This rejection of 'stare decisis' is important, because it doesn't happen that often.

Again quoting the opinion.

Williamson County was not just wrong. Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence. See supra, at 12–14. Its key conclusion, which it drew from unnecessary language in Monsanto—that a property owner does not have a ripe federal takings claim until he has unsuccessfully pursued an initial state law claim for just compensation--ignored Jacobs and many subsequent decisions holding that a property owner acquires a Fifth Amendment right to compensation at the time of a taking. This contradiction was on stark display just two years later in First English.

In all, a good opinion. Thomas' concurrence is also a good read, as always. He joined the opinion itself in full, but probably would have gone a bit further.

Not yet. Trying to find a link to a PDF of the decision to read it for myself.

Imagine that...

L

Of course we remember, but we also know what he’s really like. We remember when he doesn’t join them for weak reasons and we remember when he tries to create compromise opinions that do nothing but delay victories and muddle the law.

And we will also remember when he doesn’t join the conservatives to protect “his” legacy when Roe and similarly important cases are on the chopping block. He’s a weasel and those of us who follow the Court closely know he can’t be trusted.

Maybe she will throw in the towel.

The Supreme Court did that many years ago. This case makes it much easier to prevail against the state.