February 2009

Some interesting reports today:

  • Hawaiians urge Obama to step in on ceded lands –  an AP story reporting that “Hawaii legislators and legal groups are asking President Barack Obama to intervene in the Hawaiian lands case set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next week.” (via KPUA.net). The Obama Administration has “intervened” in the case, but not in a way the groups probably had in mind: the acting Solicitor General sought and was granted 10 minutes oforal argument time to support the State of Hawaii’s argument, as noted here. “The groups believe leftover appointees of former President George W. Bush are arguing a position that’s inconsistent with Obama’s views.” That would be odd, if true,

…
Continue Reading “Ceded Lands” Case, Land Use Round-Up

Thanks to Kona Blogger Aaron Stene for pointing out an article from West Hawaii Today, “County lawyers say fair share legal.”The article reports:

Council members who say Judge Ronald Ibarra’s 2007 ruling in a contested condemnation case invalidated the county’s fair share assessments are basing their argument on too specific a portion of the ruling, attorneys for the Corporation Counsel’s Office said.

Following the logic of the argument, the attorneys went on, someone could argue that the county’s condemnation powers were also invalidated, because both condemnation and fair share assessment were mentioned in a single sentence. Instead, the county’s attorneys said, the references were specific to the Coupe lawsuit in which the ruling was filed, according to written opinions from the office released Friday.

Disclosure: we represent the property owners in the Coupe lawsuit mentioned (more accurately termed the “Coupe condemnation,” since the Coupe Family is the…

Continue Reading County Of Hawaii “Fair Share”/Impact Fees – What Did The Court Decide?

Although it was mostly a formality, the US Supreme Court today granted the acting US Solicitor General’s motion to present oral argument and for divided oral argument in the “ceded lands” case at next week’s arguments. The Obama Administration had asked to present oral argument as an amicus to support the State’s position, and to take 10 minutes of time.  What this means is that oral arguments next Wednesday will consist of 20 minutes by the State, 10 minutes by the Obama Administration, and 30 minutes by OHA.

After the SG’s office asked for argument time (as noted here), we assumed the Court would grant the request, since it is rarely denied. The SG is sometimes labeled the “tenth Justice,” since the Court pays close attention to its views when it participates in a case as amicus.  Here, the SG’s brief supporting the State was filed by the Bush…

Continue Reading Obama Administration Granted SCOTUS Face Time In “Ceded Lands” case

Here are the links to the cases that I spoke about in my session in today’s seminar “Supreme Court, Regulatory Takings and Eminent Domain Update.”  Not all of the cases we discussed today are included below, so if you would like a link or more information about a case that is not listed, please email me at rht@hawaiilawyer.com and I will send it to you.

The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:

We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.

Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here:  Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.

  • No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case.  Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.

Continue Reading Materials From 2/20/2009 Land Use Seminar

SCOTUSblog posts “Argument Preview:  Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs,” which is a summary of the case and the briefs of the parties:

This case has attracted considerable attention. Including the United States’s brief, seven amicus briefs were filed in support of the State, most notably a brief on behalf of thirty-two states arguing that the decision below violates principles of federalism. Ten amicus briefs were filed in support of OHA. Several of those briefs raised issues that were not addressed by the parties’ briefs. The Mountain States Legal Foundation filed a brief supporting the State in which it addressed the question whether Native Hawaiians deserve special deference from Congress similar to that given to American Indians; the Alaska Federation for Natives filed a brief in response. Another related argument, whether recognizing Native Hawaiian claims to land constitutes a race-based preference in violation of the Equal Protection Clause…

Continue Reading SCOTUSblog’s Preview Of The “Ceded Lands” Oral Arguments

As the Supreme Court oral argument in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (cert.granted Oct. 1, 2008), draws nigh, public interest in the case is peaking. We will be covering the arguments, which begin at 10am EST (5am HST) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. The Obama Administration will also have 10 minutes of argument, supporting the State of Hawaii.

There is no live stream or direct coverage, but the transcript is usually released later in the day and we will post it here — along with some thoughts — as soon as it is released.

In the meantime, a couple of updates:

…
Continue Reading “Ceded Lands” Case Round-Up

The Solicitor General has filed the United States’ Brief in Opposition in AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, No. 08-497 (cert. petition filed Oct. 15, 2008).

In that case, a pharmaceutical company whose legal prescription drugs were seizedas evidence against a third party by the federal government which thenlet the expiration date pass rendering the drugs worthless, sought compensation in the Court of Federal Claims. The petition presents a single Question Presented:

Whetherit is a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment for the Government to seize (and not return) an innocent third party’s propertyfor use as evidence in a criminal prosecution, if the property is notitself contraband, is not the fruits of criminal activity, and has notbeen used in criminal activity.

The government’s brief frames the question slightly differently:

Whether the government’s seizure of personal property for use as evidence in a criminal matter effected a taking requiring just compensation under…

Continue Reading Federal Government’s Brief In Opposition In AmeriSource: Is Destruction of Evidence Seized From Innocent Third Party A Taking?

In a brief memorandum opinion, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) today affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision in Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, a case challenging a municipality’s ability to take property for farmland preservation. The court held: 

Petitioner contends that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v City of New London (545 US 469 [2005]), which dealt with takings for purposes of economic development, requires a preexisting farmland preservation plan to justify the taking of its property as a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (see US Const Amend V [“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”]). We need not, and do not, reach the issue whether petitioner’s interpretation of Kelo is correct, since the challenged taking was constitutionally proper even assuming that a preexisting farmland preservation plan was…

Continue Reading New York Court Of Appeals: No Need For A Comprehensive Taking Plan

Some interesting reports filtering across my screen today:

  • Thanks to Charley Foster for sending notice about a post at Volokh Conspiracy about whether the Takings Clause was incorporated against the states by the Due Process Clause, “Regulatory Takings and the Fourteenth Amendment.”  On that subject, check out “No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights” by Michael Kent Curtis (available on Amazon here), which makes a good case that the Reconstruction Congress meant for the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states as attributes of national citizenship.

…
Continue Reading Land Use Round-Up