Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case — A Sign Of Things To Come?

[Elderberry]

NPR by Nina Totenberg 6/22/2019

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.

Property owners and developers often have complained that zoning rules and other state and local regulations effectively take their property for public benefit, and that the Constitution requires that they be paid just compensation.

The court's decision came in the case of Rose Mary Knick, who owns 90 acres of land in Scott Township, Pa. Knick's home and a grazing area for her horses are on the land, as well as a small cemetery where her neighbors' ancestors are allegedly buried.

More: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/22/734919303/supreme-court-overturns-precedent-in-property-rights-case-a-sign-of-things-to-co

[skeeter]

And here I thought Roberts was a big stare decisis guy.

[Bill Cipher]

We shall see.

[corbe]

How SCOTUS Blew Up Stare Decisis and Nearly Declared the Federal Government Unconstitutional

Posted at 3:00 pm on June 22, 2019 by streiff

The Supreme Court has a lot of major cases pending decisions but there were two little followed cases decided this week that shook a lot of legal observers to the core and threatened to upend the federal government as it currently operates.

First up was a Fifth Amendment “takings clause” case that has knocked rapacious local governments back on their heels in the same way the infamous Kelo decision had conservatives wondering exactly what reference the Supreme Court was using.

Briefly, Rose Mary Knick owns a 90-acre parcel in Scott Township, PA. She uses the acreage for grazing horses but on that land is a small cemetery that contains graves of ancestors of neighbors. I don’t know what brought the issue to a head–I suspect some local interpersonal melodrama–but the township passed an ordinance requiring that all cemeteries on private land to be open and accessible to the public during daylight hours and issued a notice of violation to Knick. Knick filed a state lawsuit claiming her property was being illegally taken. The township responded by withdrawing its notice of violation and announcing that the ordinance would not be enforced. Knick was unimpressed and pressed her suit in federal court. The district court dismissed her lawsuit using a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1985 in Williamson Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. This requires aggrieved landowners to first seek redress in state courts and then, in a Catch-22 situation, requires federal courts to treat state court decisions in these matters as final (from the decision):

<..snip..>

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/06/22/scotus-blew-stare-decisis-nearly-declared-federal-government-unconstitutional/

[Bill Cipher]

How SCOTUS Blew Up Stare Decisis and Nearly Declared the Federal Government Unconstitutional

Posted at 3:00 pm on June 22, 2019 by streiff

The Supreme Court has a lot of major cases pending decisions but there were two little followed cases decided this week that shook a lot of legal observers to the core and threatened to upend the federal government as it currently operates.

First up was a Fifth Amendment “takings clause” case that has knocked rapacious local governments back on their heels in the same way the infamous Kelo decision had conservatives wondering exactly what reference the Supreme Court was using.

Briefly, Rose Mary Knick owns a 90-acre parcel in Scott Township, PA. She uses the acreage for grazing horses but on that land is a small cemetery that contains graves of ancestors of neighbors. I don’t know what brought the issue to a head–I suspect some local interpersonal melodrama–but the township passed an ordinance requiring that all cemeteries on private land to be open and accessible to the public during daylight hours and issued a notice of violation to Knick. Knick filed a state lawsuit claiming her property was being illegally taken. The township responded by withdrawing its notice of violation and announcing that the ordinance would not be enforced. Knick was unimpressed and pressed her suit in federal court. The district court dismissed her lawsuit using a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1985 in Williamson Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. This requires aggrieved landowners to first seek redress in state courts and then, in a Catch-22 situation, requires federal courts to treat state court decisions in these matters as final (from the decision):

<..snip..>

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/06/22/scotus-blew-stare-decisis-nearly-declared-federal-government-unconstitutional/

The Supreme Court did not “blow up” stare decisis. 

[catfish1957]

NPR by Nina Totenberg 6/22/2019

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

Interesting.  Environmenatl wise,   EPA, states, and COE have become so increasingly intrusive of how people can use their property the past 25 years, that there  be endless court battles, and hopefully much regualtion rewind to address this.  Chalk (hopefully) one for the good guys.