"I'll take 'Words I Like to See' for $800, Alex."
In this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two important property rights cases (are there any other kind?). Both are cases we've been following -- and indeed are now playing a part in.
The first is Devillier v. Texas (the second is Sheetz v. El Dorado County which we've posted about here).
After what can only be described as a weird Fifth Circuit panel opinion, followed by an even more unusual post-cert petition en banc denial (complete with concurrals and dissentals), the Supreme Court granted the cert petition.
The Question Presented:
In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause was “self-executing” and that “[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary” for claims for just compensation because they “are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]” 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized. The question presented is:May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?
In short, you don't need an authorizing or jurisdictional statute such as section 1983, do you?.
As the amicus brief which we filed along with our law firm colleagues Deb LaFetra and Kady Valois noted, we think the answer is pretty plain (no, you don't):
Consequently, because neither Congress nor a state legislature need agree to pay compensation, they do not need to adopt an implementing statute—and no waiver of sovereign immunity is necessary—for a plaintiff to invoke the judiciary’s authority to enforce the Constitution and impose a remedy. That is, if Congress repealed Section 1983 tomorrow, the constitutional mandate for just compensation remains. Or as this Court has put it, the Just Compensation Clause “of its own force” “furnish[es] a basis for a court to award money damages against the government[.]” First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cnty., 482 U.S. 304, 316 n.9 (1987) (quotation omitted).
Br. at 3.
This case is another in a long string of cases in which the Supreme Court is presented with the opportunity to rein in governments and stop the procedural game-playing. Whether it is telling property owners that they must chase approvals via a certain process only to later claim the process was not an official procedure so was meaningless. Or whether filing a state court eminent domain action so that it can ask the federal court to abstain from considering a landowner's already-filed regulatory takings lawsuit. Or asserting a statute of limitations is "jurisdictional," and therefore it doesn't matter that the government lulled the property owner into not objecting to his property being invaded by the public.The decisions in Knick and Pakdel were very obvious signals that the Court was exhausted (pun intended) with these type of exhausting games.
But the message apparently has only filtered down to the lower courts in fits and starts.
Take for example, the case now before the bench. The property owner took what might be considered an uncontroversial path: it sued the State of Texas for inverse condemnation, seeking just compensation for an allegedly State-caused flooding of the plaintiff's property. Nothing too wild about that. The plaintiff brought suit in the courts of the State of Texas. Again, nothing earth-shattering there, either.
But the State of Texas removed the case to federal court. That should set off your game-playing radar, since you'd think that Texas might prefer its own courts, and its own procedures, and its own jury pools. So why would Texas remove the case to federal court? It appears the only real reason was to make the following procedural gambit.
Once in federal court, Texas sought dismissal of the lawsuit. On what basis you ask? After all, any Eleventh Amendment immunity Texas might have enjoyed was waived when Texas itself invoked federal jurisdiction. But get this: Texas argued that the only way that the property owner could sue Texas for just compensation in federal court is if there is an enabling statute or some statute or authorization for a plaintiff to seek compensation. You need a vehicle, plaintiff. Well, what about the Just Compensation Clause itself, responded the property owner? Doesn't that say that if you take property government, that you must provide compensation?
Not enough argued Texas (and the district court and the Fifth Circuit agreed). You need more. The usual vehicle by which property owners seek just compensation for non-federal takings is section 1983, and here (Texas argued), that vehicle isn't available because it only applies to "persons," but the State of Texas isn't a person as that term is used in the statute. Only local governments and their officers are section 1983 persons. And lacking any other authorization to sue for just compensation for the alleged flood taking, the federal court could not consider the claim.
So where, under the State of Texas' theory, can a property owner go to raise these claims? Beats us. After all, if the owner goes straight to federal court seeking just compensation from a state, the state need only invoke its Eleventh Amendment immunity to get it dismissed. But if the owner goes the state court as the plaintiff did here, all that the state defendant need do is remove the case to federal court to make it magically disappear also. Wow.
Can you really have a right -- especially a right expressly set out in the Constitution itself -- that has no remedy and thus must rely on the government's consent? Not in our view.
And not just ours. It has been a fundamental principle that a "right" means there's a remedy, both on this side of the Atlantic and the other. As Justice Marshall put it in Marbury: ""The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." He didn't make that up. Lord Blackstone also noted, "it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy, by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded."
So there you go. There it is. Finally. Follow the case here, or on the Court's docket here.
