Question about Supreme Court Decision (Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania)

[Slash1972]

There was a Supreme Court decision today in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania. It was a 5-4 split, seemingly a partisan split.

"The Supreme Court ruled Friday that people can sue in federal court if they believe state or local governments have infringed on their property rights, siding with a Pennsylvania woman fighting her town over a supposed cemetery on her land.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Rose Mary Knick, who tried to bring a lawsuit in federal court after her town, Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an ordinance that required anyone with a cemetery on their land to open it to the public during the day"

I read the case, and it seems straight forward to my non-lawyer eyes. What is the basis for the ideological divide in this case?

[Hari_Seldon]

It seems to me that SCOTUS could similarly outlaw, say, zoning laws since they certainly infringe on property rights. What are they doing mixing in purely local business?

[Slash1972]

@Hari_Seldon

It seems to me that SCOTUS could similarly outlaw, say, zoning laws since they certainly infringe on property rights. What are they doing mixing in purely local business?

Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems they are just saying a person can take a case to federal court without going through state or local courts first. They don’t seem to be outlawing anything.

[Chronos]

[Moderating]
I can’t see how “Why do particular political factions hold the views they do?” can possibly be a factual question. Moving to GD.

[Slash1972]

@Chronos

[Moderating]
I can’t see how “Why do particular political factions hold the views they do?” can possibly be a factual question. Moving to GD.

Sorry, I wasn’t sure where to put it. Seemed kind of factual, but no problem.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Slash1972

There was a Supreme Court decision today in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania. It was a 5-4 split, seemingly a partisan split.

"The Supreme Court ruled Friday that people can sue in federal court if they believe state or local governments have infringed on their property rights, siding with a Pennsylvania woman fighting her town over a supposed cemetery on her land.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Rose Mary Knick, who tried to bring a lawsuit in federal court after her town, Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an ordinance that required anyone with a cemetery on their land to open it to the public during the day"

I read the case, and it seems straight forward to my non-lawyer eyes. What is the basis for the ideological divide in this case?

The question before the court was whether or not the holding of Williamson v Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172 (1985) would be held to preclude a federal lawsuit before all state court remedies had been exhausted. This is what is called “ripeness” in federal law. Specifically, the Williamson case had held that, when someone is challenging the fair compensation offered for a public taking of private property, that someone must attempt to litigate the issue of fair compensation all the way through the state’s system, before challenging the compensation in federal court. The idea behind this is that, until you have a final decision on what (if any) compensation will be paid for a “taking”, there is no constitutional violation.

The opinion by the Chief Justice rejects this notion. In the opinion of Roberts, C.J., the violation occurs at the moment of the taking, if no compensation has been paid, or if what compensation is offered is constitutionally inadequate. Thus, the issue is “ripe” for a determination by the federal courts. The reason that this is a conservative v liberal issue is that the conservative wing of the court generally wants to preserve private property rights in the face of governmental takings, whereas the liberal wing wants to empower government takings to allow the government to fulfill social needs.

[Slash1972]

@DSYoungEsq

The opinion by the Chief Justice rejects this notion. In the opinion of Roberts, C.J., the violation occurs at the moment of the taking, if no compensation has been paid, or if what compensation is offered is constitutionally inadequate. Thus, the issue is “ripe” for a determination by the federal courts. The reason that this is a conservative v liberal issue is that the conservative wing of the court generally wants to preserve private property rights in the face of governmental takings, whereas the liberal wing wants to empower government takings to allow the government to fulfill social needs.

I understand that, I think, but it seems like this case was whether or not the suit could be in Federal court or not. Why not allow it? I don’t understand that part.

[Velocity]

@Slash1972

I understand that, I think, but it seems like this case was whether or not the suit could be in Federal court or not. Why not allow it? I don’t understand that part.

I think it’s a battle of private-citizen rights vs. public interest. As **DSYoungEsq **points out, conservatives generally side with the former while liberals generally side with the latter. By allowing citizens to go directly to Fed court, it makes it easier for them to get redress without having to play by the rules of their state, which they may perceive as unfair or onerous.

[Iggy]

It was also an issue of stare decisis. The prior ruling in Williamson was overturned. There has been a renewed interest in stare decisis among the court’s liberal bloc. Kagan had opined only a few weeks ago something to the effect of ‘what might be overturned next?’ And in Knick she has answered her rhetorical question with words to the effect of ‘that didn’t take long.’

It’s all about Roe v Wade.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Slash1972

I understand that, I think, but it seems like this case was whether or not the suit could be in Federal court or not. Why not allow it? I don’t understand that part.

Well, if you are asking this question, then you do not understand what I was talking about.

In order to sue someone, there has to be an actual controversy; federal courts don’t render advisory opinions in the US (see: Art. III, §2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States). To have such a controversy, you have to have someone who has the standing to initiate the complaint (they are actually harmed by the complained of actions of the defendant/respondent), and you have to have an actual controversy that has arisen (“ripeness”), and not yet been completely resolved (“mooted”). If you cannot meet these requirements (case, standing, ripeness, not moot), you cannot sue in federal court.

So in the case in question, the “state” had arguably taken property from the plaintiff by insisting that an easement of access existed to the purported graveyard. But the Constitution of the United States doesn’t preclude takings, just takings that aren’t justly compensated (Amendment V, Constitution of the United States). So when the “taking” occurred, that’s not something that gives rise to a “controversy”, unless it is not justly compensated.

The whole point to the case is that, in the past, after the Williams case, you couldn’t claim to have been unjustly compensated until you’d gone through the entirety of whatever process the “state” in question had for handling the issue. That could mean going before a town council, going through some sort of administrative hearing, going through a state trial court proceeding, and then following all of this through appeals up to and including whatever the highest court of the state was. That’s expensive, and tilted in favor of the “state”. The legal theory is that, until you’ve been through all that, you don’t know for sure you’ve had your property “taken” without “just compensation.”

This case chucks all that into the oubliette. The Supreme Court decided that, as soon as the “taking” occurs, even if you haven’t been through the entire process that could remedy your complaint in state court, a “controversy” has arisen and is ripe for adjudication in federal court if you assert you weren’t justly compensated at that point in time. This means that the federal court system now becomes an alternative venue for private property owners to litigate the issue of just compensation for a taking. And, as the minority in the dissent note, that means there will undoubtedly be an explosion of “takings” cases in federal court.

So, from a legal standpoint, the reason not to allow it was that the Constitution didn’t allow it as being not yet ripe. From a practical standpoint, the reason not to allow it was that it will result in property owners being able to choose the venue in which they wish to litigate: state court or federal court (or, potentially, both), which means that the federal court system will now get a lot more say in exactly what “just compensation” really means.

[UltraVires]

@DSYoungEsq

Well, if you are asking this question, then you do not understand what I was talking about.

In order to sue someone, there has to be an actual controversy; federal courts don’t render advisory opinions in the US (see: Art. III, §2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States). To have such a controversy, you have to have someone who has the standing to initiate the complaint (they are actually harmed by the complained of actions of the defendant/respondent), and you have to have an actual controversy that has arisen (“ripeness”), and not yet been completely resolved (“mooted”). If you cannot meet these requirements (case, standing, ripeness, not moot), you cannot sue in federal court.

So in the case in question, the “state” had arguably taken property from the plaintiff by insisting that an easement of access existed to the purported graveyard. But the Constitution of the United States doesn’t preclude takings, just takings that aren’t justly compensated (Amendment V, Constitution of the United States). So when the “taking” occurred, that’s not something that gives rise to a “controversy”, unless it is not justly compensated.

The whole point to the case is that, in the past, after the Williams case, you couldn’t claim to have been unjustly compensated until you’d gone through the entirety of whatever process the “state” in question had for handling the issue. That could mean going before a town council, going through some sort of administrative hearing, going through a state trial court proceeding, and then following all of this through appeals up to and including whatever the highest court of the state was. That’s expensive, and tilted in favor of the “state”. The legal theory is that, until you’ve been through all that, you don’t know for sure you’ve had your property “taken” without “just compensation.”

This case chucks all that into the oubliette. The Supreme Court decided that, as soon as the “taking” occurs, even if you haven’t been through the entire process that could remedy your complaint in state court, a “controversy” has arisen and is ripe for adjudication in federal court if you assert you weren’t justly compensated at that point in time. This means that the federal court system now becomes an alternative venue for private property owners to litigate the issue of just compensation for a taking. And, as the minority in the dissent note, that means there will undoubtedly be an explosion of “takings” cases in federal court.

So, from a legal standpoint, the reason not to allow it was that the Constitution didn’t allow it as being not yet ripe. From a practical standpoint, the reason not to allow it was that it will result in property owners being able to choose the venue in which they wish to litigate: state court or federal court (or, potentially, both), which means that the federal court system will now get a lot more say in exactly what “just compensation” really means.

I agree with your summation but it is skewed ever so slightly towards the minority opinion.

The majority view is much cleaner: Section 1983 suits allow a suit in federal court for vindication of your constitutional rights against state actors. In this case, the state took the plaintiff’s property and said come own down and go through our process and let us decide how much we will give you.

Contrary to the minority’s view, at that very point in time, the plaintiff had her property taken and had not been compensated. That is a violation of the takings clause. As Roberts said (paraphrasing) the Fifth Amendment prohibits takings “without just compensation” not a taking and “we’ll figure it all out later.”

It really is a nothingburger in the giant scheme of things but a textualist would look at the language and say “Yeah, once they take the property, and have not paid, the matter is ripe for a constitutional dispute under 1983.”

The minority’s position, if applied to the Fourth Amendment, would be that the government can search your house now and get a warrant later. The majority did hold that the payment does not have to ultimately be in advance or immediate, however the matter is ripe for federal adjudication because the payment is missing.

[DSYoungEsq]

@UltraVires

I agree with your summation but it is skewed ever so slightly towards the minority opinion.

The majority view is much cleaner: Section 1983 suits allow a suit in federal court for vindication of your constitutional rights against state actors. In this case, the state took the plaintiff’s property and said come own down and go through our process and let us decide how much we will give you.

Contrary to the minority’s view, at that very point in time, the plaintiff had her property taken and had not been compensated. That is a violation of the takings clause. As Roberts said (paraphrasing) the Fifth Amendment prohibits takings “without just compensation” not a taking and “we’ll figure it all out later.”

It really is a nothingburger in the giant scheme of things but a textualist would look at the language and say “Yeah, once they take the property, and have not paid, the matter is ripe for a constitutional dispute under 1983.”

The minority’s position, if applied to the Fourth Amendment, would be that the government can search your house now and get a warrant later. The majority did hold that the payment does not have to ultimately be in advance or immediate, however the matter is ripe for federal adjudication because the payment is missing.

I don’t think I skewed anything at all. What I did in answer to the question of “why is it not obvious that you can sue in federal court” was explain the alternative hypothesis in detail.

[Slash1972]

@DSYoungEsq

From a practical standpoint, the reason not to allow it was that it will result in property owners being able to choose the venue in which they wish to litigate: state court or federal court (or, potentially, both), which means that the federal court system will now get a lot more say in exactly what “just compensation” really means.

Thank you for that explanation, I appreciate it.

[LTU2]

@Slash1972

I understand that, I think, but it seems like this case was whether or not the suit could be in Federal court or not. Why not allow it? I don’t understand that part.

It is similar to a Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 USC 2254. ALL State remedies must be exhausted first before a Federal Court will entertain the Petition.

That was the question in the Township case, whether state exhaustion must be plead first or not. The same with a Petition for Certiorari to the USSC, state remedies must be done with.