Here’s the final brief for Ms. Knick, replying to the Township’s and the Solicitor General’s supplemental letter briefs.
It’s very short, so you should read it yourself. But here’s what we think is the highlight:
Williamson County is irreconcilable with the traditional view that a Takings Clause claim accrues (and is actionable in federal court) the moment government injures property without securing compensation. The Solicitor General ultimately concurs. SG Suppl. Brief at 6. Williamson County is also irreconcilable with the original understanding of Section 1983 as a law opening federal courts to unconstitutional takings suits, Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 687, 687 n.47 (1978), and with exhaustion of remedies doctrine.
Br. at 4.
Ms. Knick’s argument focuses — correctly, we think — on Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984), pointing out that “[s]ignificantly, a suit alleging a compensable taking in the Court of Federal Claims is viable as soon as government invades a property interest without condemning it or proving a statutory compensation guarantee. Kirby, 467 U.S. at 5…” Br. at 1/
Stay tuned. The Township and the SG are entitled to file their own reply briefs. And, we’re working on a longer post that tries to make sense of the case and issues (with maybe a prediction thrown in).
Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply Brief, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (Dec. 6, 2018)