No sooner was the ink dry on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, than the Court’s decision started to have some effect.
First, the Court granted another pending cert case on takings ripeness and sent back down to the Ninth Circuit for more in light of Knick.
And now this order from the Seventh Circuit in a case that had been argued (listen above, or download here), but held pending Knick. Jensen v. Village of Mount Pleasant, No. 18-2187 (7th Cir. July 3, 2019).
This was a case where the federal district court had dismissed the owners’ Fifth Amendment claims as unripe under Williamson County. After argument in the Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert in Knick, and the Seventh Circuit delayed deciding the case until the Supreme Court decided Knick.
Shortly after the Supreme Court opinion, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding that “[p]roperty owners may now bring takings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon the taking of private property, without first exhausting state remedies.” Order at 2. And that’s good.
And even though the property owners will now likely get their day in federal court (and not to look a gift horse in the mouth), we have to ask: even if the Court had decided Knick differently, shouldn’t this case have come out the same way? After all, the Jensens challenged the Village’s exercise of eminent domain, asserting the taking was invalid under the Public Use Clause. So this wasn’t a regulatory takings case at all, but a straight up public use challenge.
The owners sought an injunction to stop the private taking. Why did the district court toss it out on Williamson County grounds? Would recovering compensation in state court have cured the Public Use problem? No. No amount of compensation can remedy an unconstitutional taking, right?
So we’re not sure what Knick tells us about Jensen or similar cases in which the owners challenge an exercise of the eminent domain power on Public Use grounds and seek an injunction to stop it. Those cases belong in federal court (or at least cannot be shuffled to state court for a compensation determination).
So yes, the owners win and the case is being sent back down. And that’s good. But the Seventh Circuit should not have sloughed it off by citing Knick, but should have instead “follow[ed] other circuits by holding that the ripeness requirement does not bar the federal district court from hearing takings claims seeking an injunction on the theory that the property would be taking for private rather than public use.” Order at 2.
Order, Jensen v. Vill. of Mount Pleasant, No. 18-2187 (7th Cir. July 3, 2019)