inversecondemnation.com

Sotomayor On Takings And Property Rights Issues

The Senate's hearings on Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court begin today. Here's our summary of cases in which she was involved as a circuit and district judge on the issue.

If confirmed, we may find out her thinking about regulatory takings very soon, because in its next Term, the Court will be reviewing Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), a case about the taking of littoral (beachfront) land in Florida. Our summary of the issues in that case is here.

If she is elevated to the Court, this case could prove especially interesting because her one unabashedly pro-property owner decision as a Second Circuit judge focused on procedural due process. In Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 434 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2005), the court held that New York's eminent domain law deprived the property owner of adequate notice, and that when the law provides a short time frame to institute a challenge to a condemnation, the government has an obligation to provide express and conspicuous notice of the time frame. The Stop the Beachfront petition raises a procedural due process question:

Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that allows an executive agency to unilaterally modify a private landowner's property boundary without a judicial hearing or the payment of just compensation a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

This case is shaping up to be very interesting.

Field Of (Broken) Dreams In New London?

That now-cliched line from Field of Dreams, "if you build it they will come" (actually, it's "he will come," but work with us here) seemed to be the driving force behind the New London Development Corporation's plans for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood when it wanted to condemn the homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors. If they condemned, Pfizer would come.

They condemned the hell out of it, but it turns out that it wasn't the pharmaceutical giant that came, or even Shoeless Joe and his Black Sox. According to a report in the New London, Connecticut paper The Day, birds -- killdeer, red-winged blackbirds, mourning doves and others -- have come: "Fort Trumbull Neighborhood Is For The Birds."

When Spinoza observed some 350 years ago that "nature abhors a vacuum," the Fort Trumbull peninsula hadn't seen its first fort yet, let alone any hints of the epic property-rights struggle to come as the 21st century dawned.

Now, just two years after the last house was razed by the New London Development Corp. for an as-yet unrealized new development, the former neighborhood is something of a demonstration site for the Dutch philosopher's famous insight. The empty lots once occupied by yards, porches and office buildings are turning into a meadow of wildflowers, milkweed and tall grasses, and the birds are moving in.

As Professor Gideon Kanner commented on this story last week, You Can't Make this Up. See also Eminent Domain is for the Birds, from Reason's blog.

The Verified Complaint In Equity: The Declaration Of Independence

We know lawyers are easy targets (we enjoy lawyer jokes as much as the next person, i.e., What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer? A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.). Still, on the day we celebrate independence, we note that author Thomas Jefferson and 23 other of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, and that the document was crafted and understood fundamentally as a legal pleading, and is the product of careful legal thinking. So lawyers can't be all that bad, right?

As convincingly argued by historian Peter Charles Hoffer in his book The Law's Conscience: Equitable Constitutionalism in America (1990), the structure and style of the Declaration follows a form familiar to most modern lawyers: a complaint initiating a lawsuit. There's the introduction and "whereas" section (why we're doing this); the bill of particulars (28 specific factual charges against George III); the Prayer for Relief (severing the colonies' political bonds to Great Britain); and finally, the verification (John Hancock and others signing and "mutually pledg[ing] to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."). And you thought Rule 11 was a tough standard.

As Professor Hoffer notes, Jefferson was an equity lawyer and the Declaration advances a familiar equitable breach of trust theory, asserting that George III was a trustee for the colonies and therefore owed them fiduciary duties, and that his failure to protect them from the capriciousness of Parliament was a breach of the trust for which equity provided the remedy of independence. However, since equity derived its power from an appeal to the King's fairness, it seemed inconsistent for the colonists to seek relief from the King for a breach of the King's fiduciary duties, so Jefferson and his fellow lawyers crafted the radical legal theory that equitable power derived from the people, and that the Continental Congress, as representatives of the people, could impose the remedy of independence.

Thus, the Declaration is much more than stirring political prose, and may not have been possible without the work and deep thinking by a bunch of lawyers. So while while you're enjoying today's hot dogs, fireworks and sunshine, please thank a lawyer. We can happily return to lawyer jokes tomorrow.

Tuesday Round-Up

Here are items which we've been reviewing today:

• Dwight Merriam's thoughts on SCOTUS nominee, Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

• A report that the "Florida Hometown Democracy" initiative has made the 2010 ballot. According to the report "[i]f the proposal gets 60 percent approval at the polls, Hometown Democracy would require local referendums on changes to city and county comprehensive plans."

• From the Willets Point United blog: "Willets Point United Hires NY State's Top Eminent Domain Attorney." (They've hired our Owners' Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon.)

• The New York Court of Appeals (that state's highest court) will be hearing arguments in the Atlantic Yards cases. The NY Observer's report here, and the NY Times report here.

• Speaking of takings for sports facilities, Professor Gideon Kanner dishes on using taxpayer money to attract and support stadiums and arenas.

• My Damon Key colleague Mark Murakami links to a Maui News article about a different approach to beach erosion issues.

Cert Denied Update

Last week's cert grant by the Supreme Court in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted, June 15, 2009) got us to thinking about other petitions in takings and land use cases which we've discussed, so here's an update on the cases denied review:

• Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 08-945 (cert. petition filed Jan. 21, 2009) - the Illinois Supreme Court held (896 N.E.2d 277 (Ill. 2008) that a regulation which imposes a 3% "surcharge" on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200 million per year, and then gives the money to horse racing tracks is not a taking of property. Several casinos challenged the law asserting, among other arguments, that the redistribution of their money to tracks was a taking.  The Illinois Supreme Court held that the regulation was a tax, and not subject to takings analysis. Cert denied June 8, 2009.

• Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008)- the Ninth Circuit held that since the Corps' jurisdictional determination is not a final agency action, the property owner cannot immediately challenge it under the Administrative Procedures Act. Cert denied June 22, 2009.

• Joy Builders, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 11 N.Y.3d 863 (2008) - the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld the imposition of a fee in lieu of a dedication of land. Cert denied April 20, 2009.

• Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) - the Ninth Circuit determined it was not a "substantial burden" on the religious exercises of Native American tribes under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for the Forest Service to allow a ski resort to make artificial snow from recycled sewage water on a mountain considered by the tribes to be sacred. Cert denied June 8, 2009.

• McClung v. City of Sumner, 548 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008) (cert petition filed Mar. 2, 2009) - the Ninth Circuit held that legislatively imposed exactions should be analyzed under the Penn Central ad hoc standards and not under Nollan/Dolan. Cert denied June 8, 2009.

• AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, No. 08-497 (cert. petition filed Oct. 15, 2008) - the Federal Circuit held that the seizure as evidence was not a taking for public use because the seizure was an exercise of the government's "police power," and not an exercise of eminent domain. Cert denied March 23, 2009.

On Judicial Takings, And The Hawaii Water Rights Backstory In Stop The Beach Renourishment

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to review the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008), which held that a state statute prohibiting "beach renourishment" without a permit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, even though it altered the long-standing rights of the owners to accretion on their land and direct access to the ocean. See Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). More background on the case at our resource page.

The Court accepted three questions for review, and the cert petition relied on two rather notorious cases with Hawaii origins to support the conclusion that a decision by a state court which unexpectedly changes established state common law rules of property is a compensable taking. See Pet. at 31-32 (citing Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 753 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1985); Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 460 F. Supp. 473 (D. Haw. 1978)).  The first Question Presented accepted for review is:

The Florida Supreme Court invoked "nonexistent rules of state substantive law" to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court's decision cause a "judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

In this post, we explore the background to the esoteric issue of "judicial takings" presented by the two Hawaii cases.

Robinson v. Ariyoshi — The Never Ending (Water Rights) Story

The Robinson litigation is one that holds a special place in our hearts, as it is a tale interwoven with the recent history of Hawaii, taking us from the time before jet travel when sugar and pineapple -- not tourism -- were the economic engines driving politics and the economy of the Territory of Hawaii, through the salad days of the openly activist Hawaii Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice William S. Richardson, and finally sputtering out (sort of) after the U.S. Supreme Court's ripeness ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).

Here's the short summary, repeated from memory (the litigation, which is still pending, has been going on for 50 years now, so please forgive us if a few of the details are off). The case started out in 1959 in a Kauai county trial court as a dispute between several sugar plantations over which of them possessed the rights to surplus water in a Kauai stream, among other things. Nine years later, the trial court issued a 65-page decision based on long-standing Kingdom, Territory, and State water law, and declared who owned what. So far, it was just another in a long line of water disputes between private parties. The losing parties took the case to the Hawaii Supreme Court (in those days, there was no Intermediate Court of Appeals and all appeals by right went directly to the Supreme Court), where no party, including the State, argued that the controlling water law was anything but as established by long-standing Hawaii cases.

The Hawaii Supreme Court, however, "sua sponte overruled all territorial cases to the contrary and adopted the English common law doctrine of riparian rights." Robinson, 753 F.2d at 1470 (citing McBryde Sugar Co. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 504 P.2d 1330 (1973)). The court "also held sua sponte that there was no such legal category as 'normal daily surplus water' and declared that the state, as sovereign, owned and had the exclusive right to control the flow," and "that because the flow of the Hanapepe [stream] was the sovereign property of the State of Hawaii, McBryde's claim of a prescriptive right to divert water could not be sustained against the state." Robinson, 753 F.2d at 1470. In other words, in a dispute between "A" and "B" over which of them possessed water rights, the Supreme Court simply said "neither of you do, the State owns it all."

The private parties who thought they had owned something for over a hundred years were understandably a bit miffed that their property had seemingly morphed into public property by the stroke of a Justice's pen, and, to add insult to injury, without even the chance to brief the Supreme Court before it announced the new rule. But after a rehearing on a narrow issue of state law, during which the court rebuffed an attempt by the private parties to raise federal constitutional issues, the Hawaii Supreme Court reaffrimed the McBryde ruling, with two Justices dissenting. See McBryde Sugar Co. v. Robinson, 55 Haw. 260, 517 P.2d 26 (1973) (per curiam). Justice Bernard Levinson switched his vote from the first opinion, concluding that it was a "radical departure" from established law, and was a taking:

Although I voted with the majority of this court in McBryde Sugar Co. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 504 P.2d 1330 (1973) [hereinafter referred to as McBryde I], I am constrained to recant that position in view of my current understanding of the problems of this case.  In light of the arguments adduced on rehearing, historical evidence discovered upon further research subsequent to the court's previous decision in this case, and a reappraisal of the reasoning supporting that decision, it is my opinion that the court committed error in holding that all surplus water belongs to the State and that private water rights, however acquired, may not be transferred to nonappurtenant land.  Because of the importance of this case to the development of the law on the subject of Hawaii's water resources, I have undertaken to present a detailed analysis explaining why McBryde I is not in keeping with long established and unique principles of Hawaiian water law.  Precisely because McBryde I is such a radical departure from these principles as they have been heretofore understood, moreover, I have concluded that McBryde I effectuates an unconstitutional taking of the appellant's and cross-appellants' property without just compensation and should be reversed on this ground as well.

McBryde, 55 Haw. at 262-63, 517 P.2d at 27 (Levinson, J., dissenting). The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari meaning the Hawaii Supreme Court's McBryde decision was final.

But it was not the last word. The sugar companies sued the state (Governor Ariyoshi, actually, since under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a state official can be sued in federal court to enjoin unconstitutional conduct despite the 11th Amendment) in federal district court under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district judge -- the inimitable Martin Pence -- held that the Hawaii Supreme Court's McBryde decision took property without just compensation, and enjoined the state from enforcing the decision. See Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 441 F.Supp. 559 (D.Haw. 1977).

Up to the Ninth Circuit the parties went, which noted the tortured procedural path the case next took, including a detour back to the Hawaii Supreme Court on certified questions when the Ninth Circuit asked the court whether it really meant what it said in McBryde:

The leisurely pace of this litigation has produced three oral arguments in this court, two of which were followed by referral of certified questions to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. See Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 65 Hawaii 641, 658 P.2d 287 (1982) (Robinson II). Following the publication of the state court's answers to the certified questions, the parties briefed the remaining issues that had been narrowed by the earlier proceedings and reargued the case. A number of complex questions remain, but to expedite the matter we will discuss only those essential to a resolution of the main question: Can the state, by a judicial decision which creates a major change in property law, divest property interests?

Robinson, 753 F.2d at 1471. [Barista's note: are you keeping score yet? There's McBryde. McBryde II. McBryde III. Robinson I. Robinson II. Robinson III. Still to come: Robinson IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, and then back to McBryde IV.]  After addressing jurisdictional issues, res judicata, and the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, the Ninth Circuit addressed the merits:

The state conceded at oral argument that the Fourteenth Amendment would require it to pay just compensation if it attempted to take vested property rights. The substantive question, therefore, is whether the state can declare, by court decision, that the water rights in this case have not vested. The short answer is no.

Robinson, 753 F.2d at 1473.The court determined that the water rights claimed by the private parties were vested rights, and that the state legislature or the state supreme court cannot alter those rights without condemnation and payment of just compensation.

By the time Robinson IV rolled around, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued its ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) that certain regulatory takings case were not ripe, and it granted cert and summarily vacated the Ninth Circuit's Robinson decision, ordering it to consider the decision again in light of Williamson County's new ripeness rules. See Ariyoshi v. Robinson, 477 U.S. 902 (1986) (Robinson IV). The Ninth Circuit vacated its earlier order (Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 796 F.2d 339 (9th Cir.1986) (Robinson V) and sent the case back to Judge Pence in the District Court.

Not to be deterred, Judge Pence found the case ripe under Williamson County. See Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 676 F.Supp. 1002, 1020-21 (D.Haw. 1987) (Robinson VI). Back up to the Ninth Circuit they went, and in Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 854 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1988) (Robinson VII), the Ninth Circuit ordered further briefing on the issue.  In Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 887 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1990) (Robinson VIII), the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and sent it back with instructions to dismiss the case because it was not ripe under Williamson County.

A thirty-one year old case was not ripe, you say?  How so?

As noted, we previously certified six questions to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. In response, the Hawaii court stated that the decision in McBryde II did not constitute the final disposition of the case. See Robinson II, 658 P.2d at 295-97. The court explained that the McBryde litigation began and was treated throughout by the trial court as an action to determine the rights of the parties to the waters of the Hanapepe. The trial court had attempted to identify the exact quantity of water to which each party was entitled. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the award of appurtenant rights and reversed the award of prescriptive and surplus rights. No specific instruction was imparted to the trial court, and the Supreme Court did not utilize its power to render a final judgment. Further, no further proceedings are of record in the trial court. The court explained that the partial reversal without instruction merely rendered that portion of the judgment void. Id. at 296-97. Thus the only portion of the judgment which could be considered final after appeal was the partial quantification of the parties' water rights, namely the award of appurtenant rights.

Robinson VIII, 887 F.2d at 218 (footnote omitted). Unbelievably, a third cert petition was not sought, and the litigation (per the Hawaii Supreme Court's edict as noted above) went back to the Kauai trial court where it all began in 1959, where, as far as anyone in these parts is aware, the case remains on the docket. The state certainly has no interest in moving it forward and ripening the case, and the private parties who originated the litigation are long since out of the sugar business. [See one note of correction in the comments.] Kauai is now a place of tax revolts, zoning fights, and quiet beaches, and the sugar industry is but a distant memory.

County of Hawaii v. Sotomura — Shifting The Line in the Sand

If you have managed to come along this far, congratulations -- there's more, but thankfully it's a shorter tale and one which follows the same general plot.

McBryde/Robinson was not a unique case, and the Hawaii Supreme Court regularly accomplished similar changes in established law in other areas. In County of Hawaii v. Sotomura, 55 Haw. 176, 517 P.2d 57 (1973), the court redefined the seaward boundary of a littoral parcel in a condemnation action from the high water mark to the "upper reaches of the wash of the waves," holding that no compensation was owed for the land seaward of the new line because it was owned by the state. The trial court had awarded nominal compensation of one dollar to the property owner for the condemnation of this property, but the Supreme Court declared that was error and took the dollar away. [Disclosure: my late law partner and name partner of our firm, Charlie Key, represented the property owners in the Hawaii Supreme Court.]

The property owners followed the Robinson script and sued in federal district court (for due process violations, not under a takings theory). The court determined "[j]udicial transfers of title to private lands to the State which do not permit the owner an opportunity to be heard or to present evidence is not constitutionally valid. Whenever a party is to be deprived of property, he is entitled to a meaningful hearing before the fact." Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 460 F. Supp. 473, 478 (D. Haw. 1978). The district court concluded:

This Court fails to find any legal, historical, factual or other precedent or basis for the conclusions of the Hawaii Supreme Court that, following erosion, the monument by which the seaward boundary of seashore land in Hawaii is to be fixed is the upper reaches of the wash of the waves. To the contrary, the evidence introduced in this case firmly establishes that the common law, followed by both legal precedent and historical practice, fixes the high water mark and seaward boundaries with reference to the tides, as opposed to the run or reach of waves on the shore. For example, on the Island of Hawaii, the seaweed line was used to indicate the level of the high tides and high water mark. The decision in Sotomura was contrary to established practice, history and precedent and, apparently, was intended to implement the court's conclusion that public policy favors extension of public use and ownership of the shoreline. A desire to promote public policy, however, does not constitute justification for a state taking private property without compensation.

Id. at 480-81. The state's appeal to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed as untimely.

Just think of the possibilities if the deadline had not been missed -- this case might still be going on today.

Eminent Domain Academic Round-Up: Pretext And Compensation

I've been reading some noteworthy law journal articles on the subject of eminent domain --  two on the issue of pretext, and one on just compensation. Worth reviewing.

• Daniel S. Hafetz, Ferreting Out Favoritism: Bringing Pretext Claims After Kelo, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 3095 (2009).

  The plaintiffs in Goldstein based their pretext claims on both Justice John Paul Stevens's brief discussion of pretext in the majority opinion of Kelo and Justice Anthony Kennedy's more lengthy discussion in his concurrence. Acknowledging that "[t]here may be private transfers in which the risk of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties is so acute that a presumption . . . of invalidity is warranted," Kennedy’s fifth-vote concurrence identified the possibility of "a more stringent standard of review than [rational basis review] for a more narrowly drawn category of takings." Although the Second Circuit rejected the application of this heightened pretext standard in Goldstein, it acknowledged that "Kelo opened up a separate avenue for a takings challenge" where the plaintiff alleges the asserted public purpose is a pretext for bestowing a private benefit.

  Article available here from the Fordham Law Review. (In the section on Goldstein and Twombly, this inversecondemnation.com post is cited.)

• Daniel B. Kelly, Pretextual Takings: Of Private Developers, Local Governments, and Impermissible Favoritism, 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. (forthcoming Summer 2009).

  Since Kelo v. City of New London, the preferred litigation strategy for challenging a condemnation that benefits a private party is to allege that the taking is "pretextual." This Article contends that, although pretextual takings are socially undesirable, the current judicial test for identifying such takings is problematic. Yet an alternative, intent-based test might be impracticable, as well as underinclusive: condemnors often have mixed motives, particularly when confronted with a firm’s credible threat to relocate. Instead, the Article develops a framework that emphasizes informational differences between local governments and private developers. When the government lacks information regarding the optimal site for an assembly, the government may need to rely on a private party to identify, as well as develop, a particular site. However, when the government itself possesses information regarding the site, precondemnation private involvement, as well as post-condemnation involvement by a preferred developer, is generally unnecessary. Such involvement increases the likelihood of a pretextual transfer without any corresponding public benefit. The Article concludes that a burden-shifting framework, analogous to Title VII’s test for identifying pretext, can be adopted in the takings context. The new framework is then applied to several situations in which allegations of pretext are likely to arise.

  Available here from SSRN.

• Matthew Cory Williams, Restitution, Eminent Domain, and Economic Development: Moving to a Gains-Based Conception of the Takings Clause, 41 Urban Lawyer 183 (Winter 2009) (25th Smith-Babcock-Williams Student Writing Competition Winner).

Post-Kelo, those recognizing the value of eminent domain to aggregate property for redevelopment have suggested that the real focus should not be on whether economic development is a public purpose, but on the amount of compensation given to the takees. Indeed, assuming takees werec compensated at the takee’s subjective value, the problem of forcing takees to "sell" their property to the government would be a much less divisive issue. However, current measures of "just compensation" are based on the "fair market value" of the property. In response to this "under compensation," several suggestions have been made on how to raise the level of compensation, and some states have enacted measures aimed at increasing compensation levels. Proposed solutions seek to award some of the benefit of the reaggregation and development of the land, called "after value," to the takees. This article examines whether awarding after value to takees complies with the major purposes of the Takings Clause. While it examines a few of the many proposed ways to award takees a portion of this after value, this article focuses more on whether the general idea of after value complies with the philosophies underlying the Takings Clause.

Article available here for ABA members.

ABA Condemnation Law Committee Conference Call On Beach Takings Case And Sotomayor Nomination

Head's up to all members of the ABA's Section of State and Local Government Law's Condemnation Law Committee: you should have received an email about next week's conference call (Thursday, June 25, 2 p.m. EDT) to discuss recent developments and items of interest, including:

• Judge Sonia Sotomayor's opinions in takings-related cases, including Didden v. Village of Port Chester, 173 Fed. Appx. 931 (2nd Cir. 2006) and Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 345 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2003).

• The Supreme Court's granting of certiorari in the Florida beachfront takings case, Walton County v. Stop Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 2008), cert. granted, 2009 WL 688854 (June 15, 2009).

If you are a section member and did not get the notification email with call-in information, send me an email and I will forward it to you.

NY Times On Judge Sotomayor And Property Rights

Adam Liptak reports Issue of Property Rights Is Likely to Arise in Sotomayor’s Confirmation Hearings in the June 14, 2009 edition of the New York Times, comparing SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor's decision in an infamous (at least in eminent domain circles) case with the positions of the two Justices most recently confirmed to the Court, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito on a similar issue.

Supreme Court nominees almost never comment on recent decisions from the court they hope to join. But both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. broke with protocol and perhaps prudence at their confirmation hearings when it came to a decision that had been issued just months before, Kelo v. City of New London.

Without quite saying Kelo had been incorrectly decided, both men, at the time federal appeals court judges, spoke at length about their doubts concerning its wisdom and consequences. The decision, a 5-to-4 ruling in 2005, allowed local governments to take private property for business development and provoked outrage across the political spectrum. 

The article details the events which resulted in the Second Circuit's unreported summary decision in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, 173 Fed. Appx. 931 (2d Cir. 2006), noting that the issue will likely be raised in Judge Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearings. As explained in the Times piece:

The case arose from a meeting in 2003 between Mr. Didden, who owned property in Port Chester, N.Y., and an executive of a company that had been designated by the village to develop a 27-acre urban renewal area that included part of the property. What happened at that meeting, Mr. Didden said, amounted to extortion.

Mr. Didden had made arrangements to put a CVS drug store on his lot. At the meeting, the executive, Gregg Wasser, demanded $800,000 as the price for permission to proceed with that project, Mr. Didden said in court papers. The alternative, Mr. Wasser said, according to the papers, was to have the village condemn Mr. Didden’s property so that Mr. Wasser's company could put a Walgreen’s in the same place. 

The Second Circuit's unsigned panel order disposed of the case in a mere 1 1/2 pages, agreeing with the district court's dismissal of Didden's challenge for being brought too late, and holding that even if not time-barred, that Kelo "obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted." Order at 3.

These type of summary orders by an appellate court are especially frustrating for the parties and their attorneys, because they provide no clue as to the court's rationale, no guidance for future cases, and appear to blow off worthwhile arguments without explanation. The lack of an opinion setting forth the court's rationale also makes it difficult for the losing party to seek further review (the Supreme Court denied cert in this case).

We've summarized Judge Sotomayor's property rights-related decisions in this post, and if she is confirmed, we won't have long to wait to find out her views on regulatory takings since the Court recently accepted review of a case from Florida on takings of beachfront property. That case won't be heard until next term when the new Justice presumably will be on the Court.

Federal Circuit: Plaintiff Alleged Property Right To Develop Land

The US Court of Appeals has reversed the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of a takings case, holding the right to develop land is property protected by the Takings Clause. In Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5084 (June 16, 2009), the property owner claimed a designation of its property (Site 28) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a critical habitat for the Mississippi Sandhill Crane -- which required it to purchase another parcel as a mitigation measure before it could sell Site 28 to the Navy -- was a taking.

The property owner sought just compensation in an inverse condemnation action in the CFC, which entered summary judgment for the government because the owner failed to assert a property right. The CFC characterized the interest claimed as "the right to sell its property to the government, without conditions imposed, in this instance to meet regulatory burdens imposed on the Navy, by obtaining the mitigation parcel." The CFC's decision is available here.

The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding the CFC misconstrued the property owner's claim, which was not a that it was deprived of its ability to sell to the Navy, but that the critical habitat designation affected its right to sell to any other party, the right to develop the land, and its fee simple title.

This alleged regulation of Schooner Harbor’s right to develop Site 28 would have an obvious impact on any subsequent sale, regardless of the purchaser’s identity—a development-restricted parcel commands a lower price. A lower sale price, of course, is not a restriction on the right of alienation, but rather one effect of a regulation on the right to develop. A detailed reading of Schooner Harbor’s position below and on appeal thus reveals that this alleged regulation of the right to develop Site 28 is also asserted as a taking.

Slip op. at 8-9. The court remanded the case to the CFC for a ripeness determination, and (if ripe), an application of the Penn Central factors to determine whether these property interests were taken.

Of additional note is the court's admonition to the CFC about the so-called "notice defense," where the government (even after the argument was expressly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court) continues to assert it can escape takings liability for a regulatory scheme that affects property values simply because the regulation was in place at the time the plaintiff purchased the property:

An additional consideration may arise on remand. The trial court indicated that because the critical habitat designation occurred in 1977, subjecting the property to certain regulatory restrictions, and Schooner Harbor did not purchase the land until 2000, it "stretches the credulity of the court that plaintiff, as a real estate developer, did not do due diligence and was not aware of the protected status of the land at issue." Schooner Harbor, 81 Fed. Cl. at 414. Schooner Harbor’s knowledge of the regulation is not per se dispositive, although it is a factor that may be considered, depending on the circumstances. "A blanket rule that purchasers with notice have no compensation right when a claim becomes ripe is too blunt an instrument to accord with the duty to compensate for what is taken." Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 628 (2001) (rejecting the argument that one who acquires title after the relevant regulation was enacted could never bring a takings claim). Consequently, the trial court must consider if and when any claim ripened as well as all of the factors relevant to Schooner Harbor’s investment-backed expectations.

Slip op. at 12. The oral argument recording is available here (37mb mp3).