Kagan Sounds New Alarm as Supreme Court Scraps Another Precedent
“Under cover of overruling 'only' a single decision, today's opinion smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens," Kagan wrote in her dissent. Chief Justice Roberts accused the dissent of making "extreme assertions."
June 21, 2019 at 11:53 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Ruling in an important takings case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned a long-standing precedent and said plaintiffs can go directly to federal court to vindicate their Fifth Amendment right to “just compensation” when the government takes their property.
The 5-4 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott represents the second time the court this term has overturned a significant precedent, and Justice Elena Kagan, who authored a dissent in the case, said the majority's decision “transgresses all usual principles of stare decisis,” the principle of standing by precedents.
Kagan added, “Under cover of overruling 'only' a single decision, today's opinion smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.” She also wrote, “Its consequence is to channel a mass of quintessentially local cases involving complex state-law issues into federal courts.”
Kagan also wrote, “The majority's overruling of Williamson County will have two damaging consequences. It will inevitably turn even well-meaning government officials into lawbreakers. And it will subvert important principles of judicial federalism.”
Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan's 19-page dissent. The case was first argued in early October, before Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court, but was reargued in January, likely to overcome a 4-4 tie. Kavanaugh sided with the majority.
The decision overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, a 1985 decision that found that a takings claim is not “ripe” for federal court if the property owner has not exhausted compensation remedies in state courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that rule has been proven inefficient and has the effect of foreclosing litigation in federal court altogether.
Roberts wrote, “A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it,” and should be able to file a civil rights Section 1983 claim in federal court at that time.
Responding to Kagan's dissent, Roberts wrote, “The dissent cannot, with respect, fairly maintain its extreme assertions regarding our application of the principle of stare decisis.”
“Williamson County was not just wrong. Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of … our takings jurisprudence,” Roberts added.
Roberts said the Williamson County “decision has come in for repeated criticism over the years from Justices of this Court and many respected commentators.” He pointed to rulings written by, among others, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
“Governments need not fear that our holding will lead federal courts to invalidate their regulations as unconstitutional. As long as just compensation remedies are available—as they have been for nearly 150 years—injunctive relief will be foreclosed,” Roberts wrote.
Rose May Knick's home in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, allegedly was situated on an ancestral burial ground and was deemed public property by the local municipality. She brought the case to the Supreme Court, claiming that a Scott Township ordinance requiring owners of private property with cemeteries on-site to open their grounds to the public violates the Constitution by taking private property without compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment.
Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer David Breemer, who represented Knick, said Friday, “This decision is a very long time coming for Rose and other property owners who have had federal courtroom doors slammed shut in their faces whenever they seek compensation for a governmental taking of their private property. The court's decision sends a message that constitutionally-based property rights deserve federal protection just like other rights.”
In the first decision overruling a precedent in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt last month, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.”
Kagan, in her dissent Friday, cited Breyer's comment and said, “Well, that didn't take long. Now one may wonder yet again.”
The court's ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250