After the recent demise of Williamson County's state procedures requirement, we've been looking at other ways in which takings claims raised in federal courts may be challenged. You know, things like the Eleventh Amendment, the still-valid final decision rule, full faith and credit and res judicata, and our old favorite obscure legal doctrine, Rooker-Feldman. Especially in the context of judicial takings.
You remember the Rooker-Felman doctrine (named after the two Supreme Court decisions which defined its contours), right? All it says is that U.S. District Courts do not have appellate jurisdiction to review final judgments of state supreme court. That's it. But thanks in part to an article by a law school mentor of ours (Williamson B.C. Chang, Rediscovering the Rooker Doctrine: Section 1983, Res Judicata and the Federal Courts, 31 Hastings L.J. 1337 (1980)), the doctrine was read much more expansively -- to preclude in many cases judicial takings claims -- until the Supreme Court put the brakes on.
The Sixth Circuit's recent opinion in VanderKodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, PC, No. 19-1091 (Feb. 26, 2020) is a good reminder of the limited scope of the doctrine. There, the court held:
First, Rooker-Feldman “applies only when a state court renders a judgment—when the court ‘investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities’ based on application of law to fact.” Id. at 892 (brackets omitted) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 479).
Slip op. at 6. The court concluded that the district court should not have employed Rooker-Feldman to dismiss a case in which the plaintiff challenged the method of calculating interest on state court garnishment orders, alleging that the method violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A writ of garnishment is not a "judgment" of a state court, and thus the federal district court wasn't being asked to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Circuit Judge Sutton concurred, and laid out the doctrine more fully than the main opinion (the excerpt above is from his concurrence).
We recommend you read both the panel opinion and Judge Sutton's. Won't take long.
Why is this case of interest to takings mavens? Short story: if you are tempted to respond to a federal district court takings complaint by asserting Rooker-Feldman ... don't.
Even if the complaint asserts a judicial takings claim that alleges a state supreme court took property without compensation. Because in those cases, the complaint isn't asking the district court to exercise appellate jurisdiction to overturn the state supreme court. Rather, it is simply alleging that the consequence of the state court decision was a taking, and that the owner is owed compensation.
VanderKodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, PC, No. 19-1091 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020)
