Skip to comments.Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases
Posted on 06/21/2019 9:33:45 AM PDT by cann
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
There goes that darn Roberts again! And that darn Kavanaugh!
Re: Roberts.....even a broken clock is right twice a day.
This was a great ruling by SCOTUS. There are times where “precedent” should not be the only consideration in a case.
Recall that he was in the majority on Citizens United and in the minority on Obergefell (Gay marriage) in which he dissented strongly. He was also in the majority on DC vs Heller.
No justice who is for Citizens United or against the legalization of gay marriage and in favor of the 2A cases like Heller is a liberal.
I think the only question is his how consistent is his conservatism.
Downside to this is now the RATS have another weapon to block the Wall
So much for Stare Decisis.
When do the Liberals start rioting? Waiting, waiting...
Now overturn “Kelo” and we have something to overhaul eminent domain in this country once and for all.
Baby steps, Justice Thomas...baby steps.
Good post, the most immediate effect is that this ruling means that property law cases can now move more quickly through the federal courts.
Takings cases sit for years in state courts with each level of state appeal rubber-stamping the previous (often incestuous) court.
Meanwhile the property owner can’t sell or use their own land. Until they are worn down by litigation. The states have little incentive to hear or settle property takings.
This is a particular problem in states that fight over water rights. The Yakima Indians have been in court for over 40 years on the same case of water rights on the Yakima River.
Gasp! Overturning precedent... must protect...
Yes. That is what I thought the headline was referring to. And New London has never done anything with the property, other than bulldozing it, have they?
Well, isn’t this the issue w MOST SC picks by Republican Presidents? Most in my lietime who went left, went HARD left. Others CANNOT be relied upon to vote there conservative principles. Whereas liberal Dem’s MOST ALWAYS vote liberal.
The problem is that once they are appointed for life with mo financial problems ever, they turn leftist.
Remember that case - "Kelo"
I don’t think they have. It was just the local municipalities just wanting to have the power to take land as they wanted.
Appalling. I remember at the time on this board, calling for Souters New Hampshire property to be seized and sold. Just for the heck of it.
It never was.
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.