We don’t usually post trial court rulings, but this one is very interesting, so we’re going to break our own rule.

New Orleans had a traffic camera program. Not popular, we’d suppose. People who were caught on camera brought a class action suit in Louisiana state court, arguing that the city didn’t have the legal authority to collect the fees and fines. They won, both in the trial court and in the court of appeals. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the case. Meaning the judgment ordering the city to return the money illegally collected was final.

Apparently, the city didn’t do so.

So the judgment creditors sued for a taking in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The predictable procedural arguments followed: Rooker/Feldman (nope), res judicata (nope), statute of limitations (nope).

But what about the takings claim itself? The city moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In other words, even if everything the plaintiffs alleged was true, this isn’t a taking. The city’s argument was two-fold: first, the plaintiffs don’t own “property.” This is just money; second, the city didn’t “take” anything — this is just a state-court judgment that the city hasn’t paid.

But in this Order, the federal District Court denied the city’s motion. This could be a taking. Primarily because this isn’t simply someone trying to enforce via the Takings Clause a state court judgment ordering the city to pay money. It was important that the judgment in the state court ordered a return of the plaintiffs’ money:

The sole claim brought by Plaintiffs in this action is that the City has unconstitutionally taken their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment by refusing to return their money upon the LASC’s denial of writ on the McMahon judgment. Plaintiffs are seeking a federal judgment for violation of the Fifth Amendment and not the enforcement of the McMahon judgment.

It is true the Fifth Circuit did not hold, or imply, that every tort or breach of contract case against a governmental entity necessarily becomes a takings claim. Instead, the “holding extends only to cases where, as in Webb’s, the government has forcibly appropriated private property without a claim of right or of public or regulatory purpose.” Plaintiffs are seeking a return of fines collected by the City after the ATES program was found to be a nullity.

Order at 20.

And here’s something we rarely see in judicial opinions on section 1983: a confirmation that (a) the right to private property is a civil right; (b) section 1983 was designed to be a vehicle to vindicate such civil rights; and (c) there is a strong federal interest in a remedy. Check this out:

That a federal interest exists in this civil rights action is obvious. An action to enforce a violation of rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is an action under Title 42 of the United States Code. Chapter 21 of Title 42, captioned “Civil Rights,” includes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1988, known as the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, relates to proceeding “in vindication of civil rights” and includes § 1983 in the list of actions in which the prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees.117 The federal interest in the remedy for a Fifth Amendment violation trumps Louisiana’s antiseizure provision.

Order at 22.

Now you see why we broke with our usual practice and posted this one?

Order and Reasons, Lafaye v. City of New Orleans, No. 2:20-cv-000410SM-DMD (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2021)