What’s going on in the Sixth Circuit? First, there was this opinion in Howard v. Macomb County, which in our view really missed the Knick vibe and resurrected the overruled Williamson County “state procedures” requirement.

Now there’s a doubling down, OPV  Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (July 9, 2025). Unpublished, most likely because it doesn’t add anything new to an existing existing circuit split, and relies on Howard. Neither OPV nor Howard uses the word “exhaustion” or even mentions Williamson County or worse yet, Knick. Nor do they mention administrative remedies. But that’s sure what it looks like to us.

The issue in OPV was whether the city is liable for, inter alia, taking OPV’s private property by denying a certificate of occupancy for residential units that OPV rented. The city had flagged these units for maintenance problems and hit them with “pink” and “red” tags. As the court put it, “[a] pink tag prohibits a property owner from renting a united to a new tenant until Lansing issues a certificate of compliance; a red tag means that a unit is vacated, unsafe, and condemned.” Slip op. at 2. 

The district court dismissal of the claims:

The district court granted that motion because, it said, OPV had failed to allege a property interest that could sustain its due-process claim, and had failed to allege a taking because Lansing has authority to enforce its housing code. The court also held that Montry and Van Fossen were entitled to qualified immunity because OPV had failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation.

Slip op. at 4. 

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, “albeit on different grounds.” Slip op. at 1.

Sixth Circuit has required home equity theft takings plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies, and that they do not have a claim under the Takings Clause until they seek statutory relief, and are denied:

OPV’s remaining federal claim is that Lansing took OPV’s property—namely its right to lease the apartments at Autumn Ridge—without just compensation. But Lansing afforded OPV a procedure to recover that stick in its bundle of property rights—again by challenging the denial of certificates of compliance through the Building Board of Appeals. And OPV “forfeited” its takings claim when it chose not to follow that procedure. See Howard v. Macomb Cnty., 133 F.4th 566, 572 (6th Cir. 2025).

Slip op. at 6. 

We’re going to ask the same question we asked after we read Howard: what’s the difference between the highlighted part of the above quote, and Williamson County‘s state procedures requirement? . 

OPV Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (6th Cir. July 9, 2025) (unpub.)