Thank you to several of our readers for pointing out that SCOTUSblog has determined that Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, No. 08-567 (cert. petition filed Oct. 27, 2008) is a “petition to watch” for the Supreme Court’s March 27, 2009 conference.
The petition asks the Court to overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the decision that gave us the weird ripeness rules in regulatory takings. The two Questions Presented:
Question 1. Should the Court overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bankinsofar as it denies property owners the right to litigate theirfederal causes of action in federal court, the same as all otherconstitutionally aggrieved citizens, and forces them to seekcompensation in state court ostensibly to ripen their federalconstitutional takings claims, where four Justices of this Courtdeclared in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco that the Williamson County rule is “mistaken” due to its lack of doctrinal underpinning and incoherent effect on federal jurisdiction?
Question 2. Where settled 11th Circuit law has for decades provided that a property owner following the Williamson Countyrule of state court ripening litigation may “reserve” federal issuesfor federal court trial, and in fact the 11th Circuit expressly soordered in an earlier appeal of this case, can the property owner bepunished for obeying such an order by having its eventual federal courtsuit dismissed on the basis of issue preclusion?
Here are the briefs:
The Court has already denied one petition asking it to overrule Williamson County this Term, and denied another involving ripeness issues.