A short, but published, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018), the court held that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and seizure, compensation, and procedural due process) were ripe for federal court, even though the plaintiffs had not sought compensation in a Louisiana court under Louisiana law.
Quick background: the city demolished a building the plaintiffs owned which they had purchased from the city at a lien sale. The prior owner had racked up a bunch of code enforcement fines, and the city claimed the building was dangerous and should come down. But after the sale to the plaintiffs and days before the demolition, the city cancelled the code enforcement lien. Predictably, the city sent the new owners a bill for the demolition. They sued in federal court, arguing they didn’t have notice of the impending demolition, and they had no chance to defend against the fines. They also sought compensation for the taking of their property, and damages for the wrongful “seizure” of their building. The District Court, relying on Williamson County, dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded.
First, no mission creep: the court concluded that Williamson County is rooted in the Just Compensation Clause, and the plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim “seeks distinct remedies” from the takings claim. Slip op. at 5. The court concluded that the taking was not the plaintiffs’ only injury alleged, and “[t]he relevant inquiry then is whether the Appellants’ state law inverse condemnation suit would afford a remedy for these additional injuries.” Slip op. at 7. After reviewing Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit held no, relying principally on a recently-decided Louisiana Supreme Court decision which noted that there’s no “specific formula” to determine the “full extent of the loss” means in takings claims under Louisiana statutes. Lacking certainty that there’s 100% overlap between Louisiana due process remedies and takings remedies, the Fifth Circuit was “not convinced that an inverse condemnation action would provide the same scope of damages available” under state law. Slip op. at 9.
Second, as to the takings claim, the court held that Williamson County is a prudential doctrine, not jurisdictional, and since it was sending the due process claim back to the District Court, it made sense to send the takings claim back with it. The court agreed with the Fourth Circuit on this issue (an issue which, we hope, will be definitively resolved nationwide or mooted by the Supreme Court in the pending Knick case).
Finally, the court held a search and seizure claim isn’t subject ripeness requirements at all. The Fourth Amendment wrong is complete upon the (allegedly) illegal seizure, here the demotion of the plaintiffs’s property.
Seems about right.
Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans City, No. 17-30692 (5th Cir. June 22, 2018)