SPONSORED:

Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 5-4 to overturn a decades-old precedent on property rights, a decision that marks a victory for conservatives.

The previous 1985 ruling found that an individual whose property is taken by a local government cannot file a federal suit under the Fifth Amendment until that challenge fails in state court.

But on Friday the justices ruled along ideological lines to reverse that precedent, finding that the requirement “imposes an unjustifiable burden,” conflicts with other similar rulings and “must be overruled.”

ADVERTISEMENT


“A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities,” Roberts continued. 
“But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and there may bring his claim in federal court.”

Conservative Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court gets it wrong again, denying justice to those in uniform Overnight Defense: Top general drops objection to major change in prosecuting military sexual assault | Supreme Court declines to take up case from former West Point cadet | Pentagon says 'small' attacks not affecting Afghanistan withdrawal Supreme Court declines to hear case over former West Point cadet's rape allegations MORE, Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoConservative justices split in ruling for immigrant fighting deportation Stand and deliver — President Biden's maiden address to Congress Supreme Court seems wary of California donor disclosure law MORE, Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchConservative justices split in ruling for immigrant fighting deportation Top GOP super PAC endorses Murkowski amid primary threat Trump-era grievances could get second life at Supreme Court MORE and Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughConservative justices split in ruling for immigrant fighting deportation Supreme Court weighs whether to limit issuance of exemptions to biofuel blending requirements The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - GOP makes infrastructure play; Senate passes Asian hate crimes bill MORE joined Roberts on the majority decision.

Justices Elena KaganElena KaganCourt watchers buzz about Breyer's possible retirement Sotomayor blasts Kavanaugh's decision on juvenile life sentences Supreme Court rejects challenge to juvenile life sentences MORE, Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgCourt watchers buzz about Breyer's possible retirement Five hot-button issues Biden didn't mention in his address to Congress Schumer waiting for recommendation on Supreme Court expansion MORE, Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSupreme Court weighs leniency for crack cocaine sentences The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Emergent BioSolutions - Biden sales pitch heads to Virginia and Louisiana Court watchers buzz about Breyer's possible retirement MORE and Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorCourt watchers buzz about Breyer's possible retirement Sotomayor blasts Kavanaugh's decision on juvenile life sentences Supreme Court rejects challenge to juvenile life sentences MORE — the liberal members of the court — dissented.
 
In the case, Scott Township in Pennsylvania informed Rose Mary Knick, who owned 90 acres in the township, that she was violating a local ordinance because she had a small graveyard on her property but did not keep it "open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours."
 
Knick filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging that the ordinance amounted to the township taking her property. She later filed a separate lawsuit in federal court claiming that the rule violates the Fifth Amendment.
 
Lower courts rejected her federal claim because of the prior Supreme Court precedent, but Friday's ruling means that property law cases can now move more quickly through the federal courts.
 
However, the liberal justices sounded the alarm over the court's reversal of precedent, for the second time so far this year.
 
In the dissenting opinion, Kagan wrote that the conservative majority "holds, in conflict with precedent after precedent, that a government violates the Constitution whenever it takes property without advance compensation – no matter how good its commitment to pay."
 
"Under cover of overruling 'only' a single decision, today's opinion smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens," she wrote.
 
Kagan went on to criticize the other justices for overturning the precedent without showing good cause to do so, in line with Supreme Court doctrine.
 
She pointed to a warning written by Breyer in a dissent of another case earlier this year when the conservative majority similarly overturned a decades-old precedent. 
 
"He concluded: 'Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.' Well, that didn't take long," Kagan wrote on Friday. "Now one may wonder yet again."
 
--Updated June 21 at 12:21 p.m.