Mark your calendars for February 29, 2008. That’s the day the US Supreme Court will decide whether to review a petition for certiorari which calls for the overruling of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the case that brought us the “ripeness” rule in regulatory takings. A summary of the Williamson County rule is in this post and the comments.
The case is Peters v. Village of Clifton, No. 07-635. The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is here. SCOTUSblog calls the case a “petition to watch,” and has posted the cert petition, the opposition, and the supporting amici briefs here.
The Questions Presented by the cert petition are:
1. Should the Court overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City to the extent it requires property owners
to seek compensation in state courts to ripen a federal takings claim, where four Justices of this Court recognized in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco that such a rule lacks any legitimate doctrinal basis and causes tremendous and unintended jurisdictional confusion?
2. Is a claim against a traditional physical taking–occurring without any contemporaneous provision of compensation–subject to Williamson
County’s state procedures ripeness rule, where that rule was articulated in the regulatory takings context, and effectively strips the federal courts of any role in
the development of physical takings law?
Disclosure: the property owner is being represented by Pacific Legal Foundation.