Does a landowner challenging the public use of a taking of property need to utilize state compensation procedures before seeking relief in federal court? In Rumber v. District of Columbia (No. 06-7004, D.C. Cir. May 25, 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia joined the majority of federal circuits and held "no."
Landowners challenged the District of Columbia's power to condemn their property, alleging, among other things, that the taking was beyond the District's authority because it was not "for public use" as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The D.C. Council had enacted a series of laws which authorized the National Capital Revitalization Corporation, a redeveloper, to take a shopping center by eminent domain.
The landowners objected, and filed suit in federal court alleging that a taking of their property would not serve a public purpose. The federal district court dismissed the complaint because it was not "ripe" for review under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). The court held "the court's review of this case on Fifth Amendment grounds is premature until: (1) a taking occurs, and, (2) D.C. provides, or fails to provide, compensation. Only then would this matter become ripe." Slip op. at 6. The district court's opinion is here.
The district court got it all wrong — Williamson County's ripeness requirements are only applicable to claims for regulatory takings where the landowner seeks just compensation as her remedy. The rationale of Williamson County — deeply flawed as it is — was meant to prevent the federal courts from prematurely reviewing the government's refusal to provide compensation, a review that could not take place until the government's own procedures for obtaining compensation had been exhausted. Williamson County is a case that needs to be revisited and overruled, as several Justices noted in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) since it produces absurd results and denies federal court review of federal constitutional rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
Finally, Williamson County's state-litigation rule has created some real anomalies, justifying our revisiting the issue... I joined the opinion of the Court in Williamson County. But further reflection and experience lead me to think that the justifications for its state-litigation requirement are suspect, while its impact on takings plaintiffs is dramatic... In an appropriate case, I believe the Court should reconsider whether plaintiffs asserting a Fifth Amendment takings claim based on the final decision of a state or local government entity must first seek compensation in state courts.
Back to Rumber. The court of appeals reversed the district court, and held that the ripeness requirement of Williamson County does not apply to instances where a landowner challenges the public use of a taking. The D.C. Circuit joined a majority of federal circuits which hold that state proceedings to determine just compensation have no bearing on whether a taking or threatened taking is for public use. Only one federal circuit, the Seventh, has held otherwise. Rumber is right on the money, so to speak: the landowners are not seeking just compensation, and the relief sought is declaratory and injunctive remedies. Nothing would have been served by forcing them to go to state court (actually, the local D.C. courts). This was a procedural gambit by the defendants to deny federal review of a federal issue, a gambit that didn't pay off.
Hat tip to Elaine Mittleman, attorney for the prevailing landowner, for keeping me updated on this case.