In Turner v. Jordan, No. 22-13159 (Sep. 17, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that even though the federal courts have jurisdiction over Turner's takings claim, the court nonetheless has the discretion to choose to wash its hands of the case in order to protect a state's administrative procedures.
This is one of those home equity takings cases, with the twist here being that Turner claims that because Florida officials failed to account for his homestead exemption, his property sold for half of what it should have at a property tax foreclosure sale. He alleged that with the exemption, the sale would have netted him some equity to which he was entitled. The district court dismissed for comity reasons, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Of course, the opinion pays lip service to the more-often-in-the-breach-than-in-the-observance principle that "federal courts have a 'virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.'" Slip op. at 18 (quoting Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992)). That duty may be "unflagging," but not really: federal courts should take a "hands-off" approach to cases that may implicate a state's tax administration. We wouldn't want to disrupt state tax administration now, would we?
Yes, Turner raised a federal civil rights claim, which is "entitled to be adjudicated in the federal courts." Slip op. at 18. And you don't need to exhaust section 1983 claims, or takings claims, as we recall. But that rule mostly doesn't apply when state remedies are "plain, adequate, and complete." Slip op. at 19. Although the court concluded this case presents a "close call," it nonetheless held that Florida's administrative tax scheme qualifies. See pages 19-20 of the opinion for the details of the three factors that go into this calculus. The first two factors were a wash: one cutting in Turner's favor, the other in favor of comity.
The first factor is whether the issue involves "commercial matters" or "fundamental rights." The court correctly (in our view) concludes that this is a case involving fundamental civil rights. Slip op. at 20. The second factor was "trickier" according to the court, but cut in favor of comity: the court concluded that Turner was objecting to his own tax situation, because he is objecting to the way his taxes were collected. Slip op. at 22.
The factor that cut strongly in favor of comity according to the court, was the third: are Florida courts better positioned than the federal courts to correct the violation?
For Turner to prevail on his due process claims it would re-quire a conclusion that the County failed to provide sufficient notice of the sale process under Florida Statutes sections 197.502(4)(a), 197.522, and potentially 197.512(1). For Turner to prevail on his claims under the Takings Clause, a federal court must determine, at least, that the County impermissibly applied the opening bid requirement under Florida Statutes § 197.502(6).
Turner’s requested remedies, and their implicated interpretations of those state-law provisions, “may be far from what the [Florida] Legislature would have willed.” Id. at 429. And state courts “have greater leeway to avoid constitutional holdings by adopting ‘narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests.’” Id. at 428 n.7 (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 429–30 (1979)). That is what would happen if the Florida courts side with the County’s interpretation of the state statutes.
Slip op. at 23-24.
And then there's the Tax Injunction Act, which "precludes relief that would diminish state revenues[.]" Slip op. at 24. And here, "Turner's interpretation of [the Florida tax statute] could diminish state revenues. After all, his property didn’t sell until it was listed for a second time with a lower opening bid amount." Id.
In the end, the court concluded that granting Turner the relief he seeks "would risk disrupting Florida's tax administration." Slip op. at 25.
Of course, Turner challenges the County’s application of Florida statutes as to his property, rather than the facial validity of the statutes. Still, “a judicial determination of official liability for the acts complained of, even though necessarily based upon a finding of bad faith, would have an undeniable chilling effect upon the actions of all County officers governed by the same practicalities . . . .” Fair Assessment, 454 U.S. at 115. If the County’s administration of tax deed sales in situations like Turner’s “is indeed unconstitutional, surely the [Florida] courts are better positioned to determine—unless and until the [Florida] Legislature weighs in—how to comply with the mandate of” procedural due process, the First Amendment, and the Takings Clause.
Slip op. at 26.
Hold on. "Surely the Florida courts are better positioned" how to comply with the U.S. Constitution's requirements? Really?
One Judge -- Judge Newsom -- wasn't having it. He dissented, respectfully, "but I'm not going to make a big stink about it." Dissent at 1. He agreed that this was a close call, but would have come out the other way, and "would allow Turner's suit to proceed." Id.
As an initial matter, I’m suspicious of court-concocted abstention rules that, in substance if not form,1 deprive federal courts of jurisdiction that the Constitution expressly authorizes and that Congress has expressly vested. I agree with Chief Justice Marshall, who explained more than two centuries ago that federal courts “have no more right to decline to exercise the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given”—both, he said, are “treason to the [C]onstitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821). At the very least, I agree with the Supreme Court’s more recent (if slightly less uncompromising) admonition that “‘[a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Maj. Op. at 18 (quoting Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992)). In any event, all here seem to agree that abstention—pursuant to the “comity doctrine” or other-wise—“is the exception, not the rule.” Colorado River Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976).
Dissent at 1-2. Check out the entirety of his dissent for Judge Newsom's analysis. Dissent at 7 ("Bottom line: It’s reasonably clear to me that the local authorities misapplied Florida law when they sold Turner’s property for pennies on the dollar. Deciding Turner’s case—which alleges that they did so for unconstitutional reasons and in an unconstitutional manner—wouldn’t call into question Florida’s property-tax scheme or his individual tax liability, nor would it require any real guesswork about the meaning or application of state law.").
We think you know which way we come out on this one, no?
Turner v. Jordan, No. 2022-13159 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2024)
