2019

Back to Knick for a bit. Our colleague Dwight Merriam has penned a response to a recent op-ed by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – RI).

The good senator, if you weren’t aware, was also the guy who argued and lost the Palazzolo case all the way back in 2001. Apparently, he’s still sore about that, because in response to Knick, he wrote, “‘Knick’-Picking: Why a Recent Supreme Court Ruling Signals a New Day,” in which he argued that the decision “is a gift for big-money developers and regulated industries.” (Neither Ms. Knick nor Mr. Palazzolo is or were a big-money developer or a regulated industry, in case you were wondering.)

Merriam doesn’t see it the same way as the august senator. In “Senator is Wrong About ‘Knick’ Ruling,” he sets the record straight (originally published at law.com). 

* * * *

Senator Whitehouse…

Continue Reading Guest Post: Senator Is Wrong About Knick Ruling

Here’s the latest cert petition about an issue we’ve been following closely. Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. ___ (July 3, 2019)

As regular readers understand, several federal courts of appeals recently have upheld giving prejudgment possession of property to a private pipeline condemnor once a district has ruled in favor of the pipeline that it qualifies under the three predicates in 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).

These courts conclude that summary judgment — which recognizes that a private pipeline company with a FERC certificate may exercise eminent domain power under the NGA — is enough to also grant the pipeline possession of the land now, even though the NGA does not delegate the quick take power. In our view, these injunctions grant pipelines a substantive right and are an usurpation of Congress’ power to determine how the delegated eminent domain power gets exercises. The courts, however (with …

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Private Pipeline’s Preliminary Injunction In Natural Gas Act Taking Created New Substantive Rights

Here’s the first post-Knick property owner victory. That was quick! 

Now before you get too excited, this is a GVR (“grant, vacate, remand”) in which the Court, having decided Knick, granted the pending petition, vacated the judgment by the Ninth Circuit, and “REMANDED for further consideration in light of Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).”

In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (oral argument video above), the Ninth Circuit concluded that California law provided the property owner an adequate opportunity to raise takings and due process claims in a California court, and therefore his federal takings claim in federal court wasn’t ripe under Williamson County. Honchariw disagreed, and argued that California had not provided an adequate opportunity, that “[t]he deicison below was stone-cold wrong under Williamson,” and that this case “may be a useful sister to the Court’s grant of certiorari in [Knick…

Continue Reading First Post-Knick Cert Grant

34s75v

We’ve resisted for as long as we can.

Here’s our take at telling the Williamson County and Knick story, 100% in memes.

Why, you may rightly ask? 

Well, it started with our Knick amicus brief, which included a meme that we thought captured well the injustice of property owners being prohibited by Williamson County from raising their federal constitutional claims in federal court (or anywhere, for that matter).

And then, as these things often do these days, the tail started wagging the dog. Readers didn’t want our cogent and deep analysis, they wanted more Knick memes. And rather than post those willy-nilly, we decided to do ’em all in a single post, and be done with it. 

So here you go. For those of you who dig this stuff, read on. If you think we missed any, or would like to send your own to fill…

Continue Reading Knick, Entirely In Memes

Here’s a question. Domestic partnership hit the skids, ended up in Family Court. That court did what family courts do and divided up the couple’s assets. The partners were not married, so one of the issues was whether they were in a “committed intimate relationship.” Family court held no. Decision appealed, and eventually sent back to the family court to consider whether the parties were in a committed intimate relationship more deeply, and if so, to redistribute the parties’ assets accordingly.

On remand, the family court reached the same conclusion (and the same distribution of assets) as its prior ruling: no committed intimate relationship. But for different reasons than it articulated the first round. This time, the court concluded that it could not constitutionally apply the committed intimate relationship test to this case, because “doing so would violate the parties’ constitutional rights.” One of those rights was the takings clause.

Takings…

Continue Reading It Isn’t A Judicial Taking When A Family Court Orders Equitable Distribution Of Assets

Eminent domain lawyers know that even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the property owner in Kelo, it acknowledged that there was a (slight?) hope in some cases where the condemnor’s stated public use or purposes is actually “pretext” to private benefit.

Pretext may be present in at least three situations: (1) when eminent domain is used to transfer the private property of one party to another private party where the magnitude of public benefits outweighs the private benefit; (2) when eminent domain is used for a one-to-one transfer of private property without a comprehensive, integrated, and carefully considered development plan; and (3) where a particular private party is identified before the taking. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 478 & n.6 (2005). 

But in the 15 years since Kelo, the Court has never agreed to take up the question of how a property…

Continue Reading Why Eminent Domain Lawyers Should Read The Supreme Court’s Census Case

Legalalertknick

We’ve already set out our general thoughts about the Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott in a series of posts on the case. But we haven’t yet noted what the case might mean on the ground in Hawaii, our home turf. 

In a client alert we did: Hawaii’s property owners now have many more options for fighting back against oppressive government regulation of property than they did last week: 

  • You can go straight to federal court to claim that a county ordinance or regulation has violated your Fifth Amendment rights, if the regulation allows the public to enter your land, or severely restricts your uses of your property. You no longer need to go to state court at all. You still may choose to do so—and there may be good reasons why you may want to consider state court—but you cannot be forced to.
  • There may

…
Continue Reading What The US Supreme Court’s Property Rights Decision Means For Hawaii’s Property Owners

Here’s the recording of last week’s Federalist Society teleforum on the issue “Is ‘Possess Now, Pay Later’ Constitutional in Private Pipeline Takings?” 
 
Stream it or download it here:
 

Here’s the summary of the podcast:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider the third of several petitions for certiorari asking it to review a question which has split the lower federal courts: whether district courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue preliminary injunctions in takings under the Natural Gas Act which allow private pipeline condemnors to obtain immediate possession of property, even though Congress has withheld the federal “quick take” power in the NGA.

The Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that simply because Congress did not delegate to private pipeline condemnors the quick take authority—the power to obtain immediate title and possession of condemned property upon a deposit…

Continue Reading Podcast Now Available: Is “Possess Now, Pay Later” Constitutional in Private Pipeline Takings?

Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following. 

In Guerin v. Fowler, 899 F,3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2018), a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that Washington state officials’ failure to return daily interest that was allegedly skimmed from the plaintiffs’ state-managed retirement accounts could be a taking. 

The panel rejected the State’s argument that because the Washington Court of Appeals held that Washington’s retirement statute didn’t require the payment of daily interest at all, the plaintiffs didn’t have “property” the state officials took when they kept the interest. If it isn’t “property” under state law, the State asserted, it isn’t “property” for purposes of the Takings Clause.

Not quite, the court concluded. Daily interest on principal is one of those “core” and “traditional” property rights that a state simply cannot disavow. In short, while state law usually defines property, there are certain sticks that transcend…

Continue Reading New Takings Cert Petition – State Of Washington: There Isn’t A Property Right To Daily Interest If We Say There Isn’t One

Restatement cover page

Here’s the article, recently published in the UMKC Law Review with thoughts on Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings cases.

We won’t get into it in detail (if you are interested, you can read the article yourself), except to say that therein we offer views of what test the Court should have adopted to analyze whether the Murr family’s two parcels should be considered as one parcel for purposes of whether they were denied productive use of their property by Wisconsin’s environmental regulations. As you recall the Justice Kennedy authored Murr majority adopted a test with a mishmash of factors (what we waggishly labeled his “social justice warrior” test). The article argues that the Court should have instead applied the old “three unities” test from larger parcel questions in eminent domain. That test focuses on the owner’s joint use of the property. …

Continue Reading New Article: Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property – What Happened to Use in Murr v. Wisconsin?