Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Last updated
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 3, 2018
Reargued January 16, 2019
Decided June 21, 2019
Full case nameRose Mary Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.
Docket no. 17-647
Citations588 U.S. ( more )
139 S. Ct. 2162; 204 L. Ed. 2d 558
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, No. 3:14-CV-02223, 2016 WL 4701549 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 07, 2016); affirmed, 862 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 1262 (2018).
Holding
A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may then bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C.   § 1983; the state-litigation requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , is overruled.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) (in part)

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court. [1]

Contents

Background

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment allows federal, state, and local governments to take private property for public use under eminent domain, as long as the private landowners are justly compensated for the taking of their property. [2]

In 1985, in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , the Supreme Court held that in cases claiming just compensation for private property taken by state or local governments, the owner had to demonstrate that the case was ripe for litigation by exhausting state law remedies "first." As it turned out, however, courts also took the position that when property owners complied with this rule and sued "first" in state court, the state court decision would give rise to res judicata or issue preclusion, so the owner's claim of federal constitutional violation could never be heard in federal court under federal law. This decision had come under criticism as it denied property owners, and them alone, access to federal courts and to protection of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. [3] [4]

In the Knick case, Rose Mary Knick of Pennsylvania had purchased 90 acres (36 ha) of farmland within Scott Township, Lackawanna County in 1970. Around 2008, another resident of the township discovered documentation that suggested one of their relatives may have been buried in a cemetery within Knick's land. In 2008, a dispute arose between Knick, and the township which promulgated public access to the alleged cemetery located on Knick's property. Knick asserted there was no evidence of such, her land title did not include any mention of a cemetery, nor was any cemetery registered with the state. The Township passed an ordinance in 2012 that required any cemetery operated within the Township to have right-of-way access from the nearest public road, and be open to public during daylight hours. After passing the ordinance, a Township official went onto Knick's property without permission, discovered a set of stones he deemed to be a cemetery, and determined Knick to be in violation of the ordinance. Knick eventually sued in federal court which dismissed her action. [5] [6]

Knick sought relief from the Pennsylvania court of common pleas, arguing that her land was being taken for public use without compensation, but the court refused to accept the case as the Township dropped a civil enforcement action against her. Because the ordinance and its threat of enforcement remained in place, Ms. Knick subsequently brought a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, citing facial challenges based on the Township's new ordinance violating her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in addition to takings claims. By September 2016, the District Court dismissed the case, arguing that it was unripe for federal courts as per Williamson County. Knick appealed to the Third Circuit Appeals Court. Knick was represented on appeal by the nonprofit public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation which specializes in property rights cases. [7] The Third Circuit considered if the various tests prescribed by Williamson County were applicable to the facial challenges presented by Knick and ultimately deemed that Knick's case was unripe until Knick had prosecuted a state-level lawsuit. [5] [6]

Supreme Court

Knick petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Knick's petition pointed out that there was a split in how Williamson County was applied in the Circuit Courts. The Third Circuit's decision agreed with the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in prior case law, but was in conflict with the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. Additionally, the petition referred to Justice John Roberts' denial for writ of certiorari in Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC v. Durham (2016), a case that also sought to challenge the Williamson County decision, which had been joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the denial, Roberts suggested that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to review Williamson County, due to the onus it puts on property owners, but required a proper case for that review. [5]

The Court granted the petition in March 2018, with the first oral arguments heard on October 3, 2018, before an eight-member Supreme Court, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh had yet to be sworn into office. In November 2018, the Court announced it would hold a second argument before all nine Justices; while the Court did not provide a rationale, analysts believed that this indicated the eight Justices were deadlocked, thus requiring Justice Kavanaugh to take part in the case to break the deadlock. [8] The second oral hearings before the full court was held January 16, 2019.

The Court issued its judgment on June 21, 2019. [1] In its 5–4 decision along ideological lines, it vacated the Third Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. The decision overruled the portion of Williamson County decision that required those seeking legal action for takings-compensation to seek state litigation first, finding that the original decision was poorly reasoned. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, writing that "A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it." [9] The opinion emphasized that when private land is taken there is a constitutional violation, and the case is ripe for litigation in the federal court system. [2] Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority, and in a separate opinion, wrote " Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent." [10] Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and expressed concerns that by eliminating the need to bring such takings-compensation cases to state courts first, it could require federal courts to become involved in understanding complex state law issues. [9] Kagan's decision also expressed concern that Knick along with other recent Court decisions such as Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt shows a trend that the current Court is ready to ignore long-standing precedent and overturn past rulings. Justice Stephen Breyer had expressed similar concern in his dissent with Hyatt. [2] [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff and not the defendant.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.

Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. In this case, the court upheld a Pennsylvania statute which limited coal mining causing damage to buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries through subsidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest legal organization established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual and economic freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality before the law, freedom of speech and association, economic liberty, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The United States government claimed a public right to fly over Thomas Lee Causby's farm located near an airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. Causby argued that the government's low-altitude flights entitled him to just compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

<i>Schillinger v. United States</i> 1894 United States Supreme Court case

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ; 576 U.S. 351 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

References

  1. 1 2 Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania,No. 17-647 , 588 U.S. ___(2019).
  2. 1 2 3 Totenberg, Nina (June 22, 2019). "Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?". NPR . Retrieved June 22, 2019.
  3. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-02-23. Retrieved 2019-01-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ↑ Somin, Ilya (2 October 2018). "Opinion - The Justices Can Undo a Constitutional Catch-22". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  5. 1 2 3 "ROSE MARY KNICK, Petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT; CARL S. FERRARO" (PDF). Scotusblog.com. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  6. 1 2 Nark, Jason (24 May 2018). "SCOTUS will dig into debate over alleged cemetery on Pa. farm". Inquirer.com. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court affirms that property rights are among Americans' most important constitutional rights".
  8. ↑ "Busy afternoon at the Supreme Court: Six grants and one reargument order, but no stay in census dispute". Scotusblog.com. 2 November 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  9. 1 2 Wolf, Richard (June 21, 2019). "Conservative victory: Supreme Court gives property owners fast track to challenge government takings". USA Today . Retrieved June 21, 2019.
  10. 1 2 de Vogue, Ariana (June 21, 2019). "Elena Kagan becomes latest liberal justice to sound alarm on precedent". CNN . Retrieved June 22, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.