New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, et al. and Downing/Salt Pond Partners, L.P. v. State of Rhode Island, et al.

2/9/2012

 
Supporting a Property Owner’s Right to Seek Redress in Federal Court for an Alleged Unconstitutional Taking of Property

Each of these petitions for certiorari raised the same issue in a different factual context.  Each challenged the so-called Williamson County state litigation requirement for takings claims under the Fifth Amendment. In Colony Cove Supreme Court review was sought of a decision by the Ninth Circuit; in Downing/Salt Pond Partners a decision by the First Circuit is at issue.  In each case the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s takings claims on the ground that Williamson County requires the matter to be litigated in state court. In Williamson County Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that, when asserted against a state authority, a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment is not ripe to be heard in federal court until there has been a final decision denying just compensation to the complaining property owner.  (As the Supreme Court pointed out in Williamson County the Fifth Amendment does not forbid the government from taking private property for a public purpose; it only forbids the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation.  Therefore, the Williamson County majority concluded, there can be no federal claim until there has been a final state decision on compensation.) 

The ripeness requirement of Williamson County has led to the following anomalous result.  Under Williamson County no state takings claim could be ripe for federal adjudication until it has been fully litigated in state court.  (This is the so-called “state litigation requirement.”)  But, as the Supreme Court expressly recognized in San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, California,545 U.S. 323 (2005), once a state-based takings claim has been fully litigated in state court, it cannot be re-litigated in federal court.  See, e.g., the federal full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738.)   The upshot has been that, unlike any other federal or constitutional right, a property owner’s rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment can never be litigated in federal court against a state defendant.  The only chance for federal review of a state taking of private property—either pursuant to eminent domain or a regulatory taking—is via a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

In San Remo, former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion, in which three other justices joined. The four justices called for a reexamination of the Williamson County state litigation requirement.  These two petitions for certiorari presented the issue in a relatively pure form, and NELF, joined by other amici, urged the Court, in each case, to heed Chief Justice Rehnquist’s suggestion and seize the opportunity these cases present to look once again at its holding in Williamson County and its, perhaps unintended, denial of access to federal courts for one of the most fundamental federal rights, that forbidding a governmental body to take property for a pubic purpose without just compensation.

Despite NELF’s arguments, and the fact that this issue has continued to present problems for property owners in New England and throughout the United States, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in both cases.  This indicates that, despite the former  Chief Justice’s suggestion in San Remo, the Court has no present intention of revisiting the Williamson County rule.  


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001