Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
87 L. Ed. 2d 126, 473 U.S. 172, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 87 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim is not ripe for review in federal court until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding their application to the property and the owner has sought and been denied compensation through available state procedures.
Facts:
- In 1973, the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for a 736-unit residential development called Temple Hills based on the county's 'cluster' zoning ordinance.
- The developer invested approximately $3.5 million in developing the property, including constructing a golf course and installing utilities, and received final approval for 212 units by 1979.
- In 1977, the county amended its zoning ordinance to be more restrictive, reducing the allowable density of new developments.
- In 1979, the Commission reversed its prior policy and decided to apply the new, more restrictive 1977 regulations to the Temple Hills development.
- In 1980, after Hamilton Bank's predecessor submitted a revised plat, the Commission disapproved it, citing non-compliance with the new regulations on issues like density, grades, and road length.
- Hamilton Bank acquired the undeveloped portion of the property through foreclosure in late 1980.
- In June 1981, Hamilton Bank submitted a new plat for 688 units, which the Commission again disapproved for eight reasons.
- Hamilton Bank did not apply for variances from the Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals that could have potentially resolved at least five of the eight objections.
Procedural Posture:
- Hamilton Bank sued the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging a regulatory taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A jury found that the Commission had temporarily taken Hamilton Bank's property and awarded $350,000 in damages.
- The District Court judge granted the Commission's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), setting aside the jury's award.
- Hamilton Bank, as the appellant, appealed the JNOV to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of Hamilton Bank.
- The Williamson County Regional Planning Commission, as petitioners, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim ripe for federal court review before the property owner has obtained a final decision from the relevant government entity regarding the application of the regulations to the property and has utilized available state procedures for obtaining just compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A regulatory takings claim is not ripe until the property owner satisfies two independent requirements. First, the owner must obtain a final, definitive decision from the relevant government entity regarding how the regulations will apply to the specific property at issue. Hamilton Bank failed to satisfy this 'finality' prong because it never sought variances from the Commission’s regulations, which leaves open the possibility that it could have been allowed to develop the property. This finality requirement is distinct from the exhaustion of remedies doctrine because seeking a variance is part of the administrative decision-making process itself, not an appeal of an already-completed decision. Second, the owner must have utilized the state's procedures for obtaining just compensation. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking without just compensation, not the taking itself; therefore, no constitutional injury occurs until the state refuses to provide compensation. Because Hamilton Bank did not pursue a claim for inverse condemnation under the available Tennessee statute, it had not been denied just compensation and its claim was premature.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. While reaffirming his dissenting view in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. that the Constitution requires compensation for temporary regulatory takings, he agrees with the majority that Hamilton Bank's claim is premature. A court must first establish that a taking has occurred, which is impossible here because the Commission's decision was not final. Furthermore, the bank's claim is not ripe because it failed to utilize Tennessee's available inverse condemnation procedure to seek compensation.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The judgment must be reversed because the claim is not ripe and, on the merits, there was no compensable taking. He distinguishes between 'permanent harms' (the subject of a takings claim) and 'temporary harms' (delays from the regulatory process). He agrees the permanent harm claim is not ripe. The damages awarded were for a temporary harm, which he characterizes as an inevitable byproduct of good-faith governmental decision-making. As long as the procedures employed are fair—and the jury found no procedural due process violation—the Constitution does not require compensation for such temporary harms and litigation costs.
Analysis:
This case established the landmark two-pronged ripeness test for regulatory takings claims, significantly altering land-use litigation. By requiring a final decision (including seeking variances) and exhaustion of state compensation remedies, the ruling created a substantial procedural barrier to bringing Fifth Amendment takings claims in federal court. This decision effectively channeled most takings litigation into state courts, forcing property owners to litigate the merits of their compensation claims there before a federal court would even consider the constitutional question. While the second prong was later overruled by Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), the 'finality' prong of the Williamson County test remains a critical hurdle for takings plaintiffs.
Unlock the full brief for Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City