On June 21, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in an eminent domain case that is sure to have long lasting ramifications, Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.
The Town of Scott originated an ordinance requiring property with a cemetery must be open to the public during daylight hours. Rose Marie Knick owns 90 acres with an old family cemetery on it. She was sighted for violation of the ordinance.
Rose Marie Knick filed a takings claim in Federal Court referencing the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In the end, the majority overruled the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City decision from 1985, which created a Catch-22 for property owners.
You can read an contemporaneous review of Williamson County: Ripeness for Taking Clause: Finality and exhaustion in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City by James D. Smith, Ecology Law Quarterly - Berkeley Law.
It is the ripeness issue that has been the problem with property owners getting just compensation for government takings for over 35 years. Since the Williamson decision, property owners were routinely denied access to Federal Courts to adjudicate their claim. They were required to first exhaust all state courts and administrative processes before making a Federal claim. But, when they tried to file in Federal Court their case was not accepted due to the full faith and credit statue.
The dissenting justices in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania wrote quite a bit about honoring stare decisis and idea that the Fifth Amendment right hinges on whether there is a promise of compensation.
The majority justices found that a property owners rights are violated when a government takes all or part of the property without compensation. It is the taking that triggers a property rights violation, not the promise of compensation. They concluded:
“that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustified burden on taking 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.”
Majority Justices:
Chief Justice Roberts (authored the opinion), Thomas (authored concurring opinion), Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Minority Justices:
Kagan (authored dissenting opinion), Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Visit www.wemargad.org to read more about this opinion.Click on Judiciary.
WeMAR GAD: Advocating for private property rights, the right to private contract and YOUR business!
Song Credits:
WEPA Song Credits: "Wepa" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
WERQ Song Credits:"Werq" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
