Knick v. Township of Scott
139 S.Ct. 2162, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4197, 204 L. Ed. 2d 558 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the moment a local government takes their property without providing just compensation. The owner is not required to first seek compensation through state court procedures before bringing the federal claim.
Facts:
- Rose Mary Knick owns 90 acres of land in Scott Township, Pennsylvania, which includes a small, private graveyard.
- In 2012, Scott Township passed an ordinance requiring all cemeteries to be kept open and accessible to the public during daylight hours.
- The ordinance defined 'cemetery' broadly to include any area used as a burial place on private or public property.
- The ordinance also authorized Township officers to enter any private property to determine if a cemetery existed.
- In 2013, a Township officer entered Knick's property, found several grave markers, and notified her that she was violating the ordinance by not opening the cemetery to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Rose Mary Knick sought declaratory and injunctive relief in Pennsylvania state court. The court declined to rule after the Township agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance.
- Knick filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the ordinance caused an unconstitutional taking of her property.
- The District Court dismissed Knick's claim as not ripe, citing the Williamson County precedent that required her to first pursue an inverse condemnation action in state court.
- Knick, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the Township was the appellee.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal, holding that it was bound by the Williamson County precedent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider the state-litigation requirement of Williamson County.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner have a Fifth Amendment claim for a taking of property by a local government that is actionable in federal court under § 1983 as soon as the property is taken, without first resorting to state court litigation for compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes property for public use without paying for it. The prior state-litigation requirement from Williamson County is overruled because it was based on the mistaken premise that a constitutional violation does not occur until the state denies compensation in a post-taking proceeding. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment right is 'self-executing' and the violation is complete at the moment of the uncompensated taking. This approach aligns takings claims with other Bill of Rights claims under § 1983, which do not require exhaustion of state remedies, and eliminates the 'preclusion trap' established by San Remo, which barred federal review after a state court decision.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes. A violation of the Takings Clause occurs as soon as the government takes property without paying for it. The Fifth Amendment makes just compensation a 'prerequisite' to the government's authority to take property, rendering the government's 'sue me' approach untenable. While a constitutional violation occurs at the moment of the taking, this does not foreclose ordinary remedial principles; injunctive relief is not automatic if an adequate remedy at law, such as a suit for compensation, exists.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
No. A government does not violate the Takings Clause until it both takes property and denies just compensation, and a denial only occurs after the property owner has unsuccessfully used the state's established procedures for obtaining payment. For over a century, precedent has held that the Constitution permits takings so long as a 'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation' exists, meaning advance payment is not required. Overruling Williamson County violates principles of stare decisis, betrays judicial federalism by channeling complex, state-law-dependent land-use disputes into federal courts, and misinterprets a long line of precedent.
Analysis:
This decision represents a seismic shift in takings jurisprudence by overruling the 34-year-old precedent of Williamson County. It removes a significant procedural barrier that had effectively kept most takings claims against state and local governments out of federal court. By allowing property owners to file § 1983 claims directly in a federal forum, the ruling elevates the Takings Clause to the same procedural status as other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. This change will likely lead to a substantial increase in federal takings litigation and will require federal courts to adjudicate land-use disputes that often involve intricate questions of state property law, an issue central to the dissent's federalism concerns.
