We're not 100% certain of what the issues are in Landowners United Advocacy v. Cordova, No. 19-1126, a case argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit yesterday.
But from what we can gather from listening between the lines to the OA recording (and reviewing some of the District Court documents here), the case is a federal court takings challenge to something the State of Colorado did, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) limited the impact of the federal Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and whether that statute means the plaintiffs here cannot challenge Colorado in federal court, but must proceed in state court. A similar issue was addressed by the Fifth Circuit recently, in the context of the Eleventh Amendment.
Was the majority in Knick telling us that the self-executing nature of the Just Compensation requirement -- and the case's holding that a government action violates the Constitution as soon as it takes property without having paid for it -- means that limitations on federal court jurisdictions such as the Eleventh Amendment and the Tax Anti-Injunction Act don't keep takings plaintiffs out of federal court? The Tenth Circuit panel in our opinion didn't sound too receptive of that argument.
But no matter. What really caught our eye was the way the property owners' counsel started off his presentation (quoted in the headline). Bravo.
However the Tenth Circuit rules, we are all takings nerds now.
