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.
Tyrants can read the Constitution? I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
More good news
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 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?
Trump keeps paying off.
Stops thug ‘environmentalists’ from stealing property of private citizens (who own something with a beautiful view) - in the name of saving some phony ‘snail darter’...
Once again, the computer that automatically issues RBG’s vote along political lines does not disappoint.
No doubt it looked at the EU Constitution, or the Constitution of Cuba or Zimbabwe, when looking for suitable precedents.
“Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – the liberal members of the court – dissented”
Was Notorious RBG actually in attendance?
Liberalism is a euphemism for:
GOVERNMENT.
It’s what it does.
Hopefully all those California farmers who had their land confiscated for the high speed train fiasco years ago and haven’t been paid by the state will now have their day in court.
Commies don't believe in private property rights anyway.
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.