Here's the cert petition, recently filed, which asks the following Questions Presented:
Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Terminal Railroad formerly had the right to operate a portion of rail line subject to a conditional easement over a portion of Petitioner’s property. The easement terminated according to its terms. Nevertheless, Chicago Terminal Railroad entered into an agreement with the City of Chicago to receive compensation for the terminated easement pursuant to The National Trails System Act. There is an irreconcilable split between state courts regarding whether the Surface Transportation Board can convert an expired easement by compensating the railroad, which holds no valid title, for access to create a recreational trail, a purpose not permitted by the easement’s terms.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq., precludes state courts from resolving, for purposes of state property law, competing claims to property rights.
2. Whether Congress intended to create a massive takings scheme when it enacted the National Trails System Act.
The petition makes two claims.
First, that there's a split of state court authority on whether a state's property law has bearing in these kind of cases. Alabama says yes, Illinois says no - it's all up to federal law where rail is concerned.
Second:
Though the STB, in conjunction with the Court of Federal Claims, has developed a massive inverse condemnation regime, there is no indication that Congress actually contemplated or authorized it. While the Preseault Court held that the availability of just compensation under the Tucker Act prevented the Trails Act from violating the Fifth Amendment, the availability of damages under the Tucker Act does not evidence the intent of Congress. There is no evidence that Congress ever intended the National Trails system Act to become an extensive expensive takings program.
Rather, it should require clear and unambiguous congressional authorization. Cf. Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2180 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“This ‘sue me’ approach to the Takings Clause is untenable.”). This Court should consider whether the current takings program, encroaching on the property rights of landowners throughout the country, costing tax-payers hundreds of millions of dollars should simply be assumed as intended by Congress.
Pet. at 14-15.
Follow along on the Court's docket here.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Burgoyne, LLC v. Chicago Terminal Railroad Co., No. 20-1235 (Mar. 1, 2021)...
