No smoking in Hatu
A short one from the U.S. District Court in Utah, but worth reading because it highlights one of those unresolved issues: the remedy for a "takings" claim.
Now, you've heard the Supreme Court describe just compensation as the "default" remedy for regulatory takings and inverse claims. But it isn't the only remedy, is it?
Well, in this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah seems to think so. At least it is in federal court.
Utah adopted a statute that prohibits tobacco businesses from operating within 1000 feet of a school. Smoke shops sued in federal court for a taking under section 1983 and other things (due process, First Amendment, &c.). The defendant was not the State of Utah because, you know, you can't sue a state for money in federal court unless it consents. So as in other cases, the smoke shops sued state officials (in their official capacity), and limited the relief sought to a prospective injunction, including a TRO.
To get a temporary injunction, the standards are pretty much the same as a permanent injunction, and "[i]t is well settled that interim equitable relief is only available when a plaintiff can obtain at least some final equitable relief." Slip op. at 2. And that was the problem here: according to the court, you can't enjoin a taking "as long as an adequate provisions for obtaining just compensation exists." Id. And "because the federal and nearly all state governments provide just compensation remedies to property owners who have suffered a taking, equitable relief is generally unavailable." Id. (quoting Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2176 (2019).
Utah is one of those states that "provide just compensation remedies." In state courts, only of course. Because the state itself and its officials (in their official capacities) are not "persons" under section 1983. But property owners can sue the state and its officials for compensation for a taking under the Utah Constitution.
Ah, the district court concluded, that means the property owners cannot get the injunctive relief they are asking for in federal court, because they can go to state court and get compensation. Slip op. at 3 ("But Plaintiffs may bring an inverse condemnation action against Utah in state court under Article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution to recover just compensation for a regulatory taking.").
Whoa, you say that sounds a lot like the now-defunct "state procedures" ripeness requirement from (overruled) Williamson County? Courts elsewhere seem to think that equitable relief against a state is available (see here also) if you can't get compensation in federal court. (Yes, we get that in those cases, the allegation is that the government is wrongfully keeping money belonging to the plaintiffs, but that seems like a thin reed).
Check out this post for more on our thoughts about whether a federal court may grant equitable relief against state officials for takings claims.
Memorandum Decision and Order, Exotic Smoke & Vape v. Cox, No. 2:22-cv-408 (D. Utah June 28, 2020)
