It's been accepted for such a long time that it's become one of those things that "everyone knows we've always done it that way," but most probably don't quite know why that is so: if you have to sue the United States for a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, you go to the Court of Federal Claims.
In the CFC, just compensation determined isn't determined by a jury, nor is your case presided over by an Article III judge. In other words, your case is wholly decided by a judge with a 10-year appointment who technically is an employee of the Executive branch, instead of your peers and a guy or gal with life tenure, who is independent and in the Judicial branch.
Comes now a complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan earlier this week, that one would normally expect to have been filed in the CFC, if one were in the mindset of "we've always done it that way" -- a rails-to-trails takings case against the federal government, seeking compensation. Not only was it filed in a District Court (where you get an Article III judge), it also demands a jury determine just compensation because ... well, because the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury, that's why.
Interested yet? Here's the Summary of This Lawsuit:
This lawsuit is a Fifth Amendment taking case in which Michigan landowners seek to vindicate their right to be justly compensated for property the federal government took from them, and to uphold foundational rights and principles the United States Constitution guarantees all citizens. Twenty individuals, families, and small businesses own land in Muskegon, Michigan. In 1886, the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad built a railway across land now owned by these twenty owners. Under the terms of the original 1886 right-of-way easements and Michigan law, when the railroad no longer operated a railroad across the strip of these owners’ land, the easement terminated and these owners enjoyed unencumbered title and exclusive possession of their land. But that is not what happened. The federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued an order invoking the federal Trails Act. The STB’s order nullified these owners’ right to their land under Michigan law and encumbered their land with a new easement for a federally established public recreational trail under the perpetual jurisdiction of the STB.The Fifth Amendment allows the federal government to take privately owned land for a public use but requires the government to justly compensate the owners for that property it has taken. In 1990, the United States Supreme Court held that establishing a public recreational trail across privately owned land is a taking of private property for which the federal government must compensate the owner. Because the government has not compensated these Michigan owners, or even offered to compensate them, these owners have been forced to bring this inverse condemnation action to vindicate their Fifth Amendment right to be justly compensated.This case is different from previous Trails Act taking cases in the following respect: These Michigan owners want their Fifth Amendment claim adjudicated by this federal district court, an Article III Court; and they also want the compensation they are due determined by a jury as the Seventh Amendment guarantees.Thus, these twenty Michigan landowners ask this Court to award them the full measure of just compensation they are owed for that property the federal government took from them – as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. And they request this to be determined in a trial by jury – as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment.
Complaint and Jury Demand, Brott v. United States, No. 15-cv-00038 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2015).
In other words, we don't need no stinkin' Tucker Act (which dictates the claim is filed in the CFC, an Article I court) in order to get compensation. As we've said before, the entitlement to just compensation is self-executing once property is taken.
Read the entire complaint. It's fascinating, and well worth your time.
In our view, this is a serious effort -- the property owner-plaintiffs are represented by Thor Hearne, no slouch when it comes to considering serious issues.
We will definitely be following along as this case progresses up the chain.
Complaint and Jury Demand, Brott v. United States, No. 15-cv-00038 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2015)
