Term: 2018
Docket: 17-647
Knick v. Township Of Scott, Pennsylvania
- Pro
17-647 KNICK V. SCOTT, PA DECISION BELOW: 862 F.3d 310 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. ORDER OF 11/2/2018: CASE IS RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR FOR REARGUMENT. THE PARTIES AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARE DIRECTED TO FILE LETTER BRIEFS . . . ADDRESSING PETITIONER'S ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR VACATUR . . . CERT. GRANTED 3/5/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment). Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-3587
In the case of Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (2018), Rose Mary Knick challenged a local ordinance that required all cemeteries to be open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours. The township considered part of her private property as an old burial ground and thus subject to this law. She argued that this constituted a taking without just compensation, violating her Fifth Amendment rights. Initially, she was unable to bring her federal takings claim in court due to precedent set by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v Hamilton Bank (1985) which stated such claims must first seek compensation through state courts before proceeding federally. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Knick, overturning the Williamson County precedent and allowing plaintiffs with alleged violations under the Takings Clause direct access to federal court rather than having them first go through state litigation processes for redressal. This decision significantly changed how property owners can challenge government actions they believe infringe upon their constitutional rights.
In the dissenting opinion for Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision to overrule a long-standing precedent was not only unnecessary but also misguided. They contended that there was no compelling reason to overturn Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), which required property owners to seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim. The dissenters believed this rule promoted principles of federalism and comity by giving states an opportunity to address alleged violations first. They criticized the majority for disregarding these principles without sufficient justification or consideration for stare decisis - respect for precedent - thereby destabilizing established legal norms.
