Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit

Subscribe to Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit via RSS

Mark your calendars for July 12, 2013 for our CLE teleconference on “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne,” sponsored by the ABA’s State and Local Government Law Section. We’ll start at 1:00 pm ET (Noon CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT, 7:00 am HT). Here’s the program description:

In the 2012term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on two regulatory takings cases,Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, and Horne v. U.S.Department of Agriculture. Join our panel of legal scholars and expertpractitioners for the first analysis of these cases, and how the Court’srulings on land use exactions (Koontz), and jurisdiction (Horne) will impactyour practice.

We’ve assembled a great faculty with a mix of expert scholars and practitioners: Professor Michael McConnell (arguing counsel in Horne), Professor David Callies, W. Andrew Gowder, and…

Continue Reading Upcoming ABA CLE: “Supreme Court Takings – A First Look At Koontz And Horne”

Here’s the cert petition filed last week which asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Mehaffy v. United States (Dec. 10, 2012). In that case, the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The Questions Presented give some additional background:

In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) entered into an agreement that gave the Petitioner‘s predecessor in interest, Nomikano, Inc., the right to fill certain wetlands on its property. In exchange, the government obtained a flowage easement over a portion of the property. Petitioner was Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikano and involved in those negotiations. In 2000, Petitioner obtained the property. Subsequently, in 2006, he sought a permit from the Corps…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Do Pre-Purchase Regulations Negate A Property Owner’s Expectations?

Having now had a chance to review in detail the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (June 10, 2013), we were struck by how at least one of the reactions to the decision painted it as a “narrow, specialized ruling” that’s more of a one-off, than a case with lasting impact. Maybe this is a natural result of the case being argued last of the three takings cases the Court considered this term. Or because it involves what Justice Kagan characterized at oral arguments as possibly “the world’s most outdated law.” Or because there are several very high-profile cases on the Court’s docket that everyone’s anticipating. Or maybe just because it’s about raisins.

California raisins. 

But we respectfully dissent from the viewpoint that sees Horne as the least important and interesting of the 2013 Takings trilogy, or…

Continue Reading Unanimous SCOTUS: There’s More To The Takings Clause Than Just “Just Compensation”

We haven’t had time to write up our thoughts about today’s unanimous Supreme Court opinion in Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123, but to tide you over until then, here are the initial reports on the case:

      …
      Continue Reading Raisin Round-Up: Initial Reports On Horne v. USDA

      Looks like the Supreme Court tackled the easier of the two remaining takings cases first. This morning, the Court issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, reversing the Ninth Circuit and holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a property owner’s defense in a case where the agency has imposed or seeks to impose a fine, that doing so would be a taking. Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (June 10, 2013).

      Yes, this is the California raisin case, for those of you who have been following along. The Court held that the takings defense was properly raised by the Hornes in their capacity as raisin “handlers.”

      We’re reviewing the opinion now, and will have some further thoughts once we do. We predicted the Court would overturn the Ninth Circuit, but it looks like we were off the mark when we guessed that it might…

      Continue Reading SCOTUS: Property Owner Can Raise(in) A Takings Defense

      Here’s the Reply Brief, filed by the petitioner/property owner in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013).

      That’s the case in which the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might allow the use of the water he alleges was taken. 

      The issue in the case is whether it is a taking for the government to cut off physical access to a property owner’s vested right to use water. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $4.2 million in just compensation for the taking of Hage’s water rights. But the Federal Circuit reversed because the case was not ripe.

      Here is the cert petition, here’s the federal government’s BIO, and here are the amicus briefs…

      Continue Reading Final Brief In Western Water Rights Takings Case

      Congratulations: if you understood that headline (much less are eager to read this post), you are officially a takings geek.

      As we noted earlier, after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), the Court of Federal Claimsin Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States said it would reconsider its dismissal of that case (which was based on the now-vacated Federal Circuit decision in Arkansas Game), and asked the parties to brief the effect of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

      The property owner in Big Oak Farms is seeking compensation for the 2011 flooding of its  land after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blew up a levee on the Mississippi River in order to, in the plaintiff’s words, “sacrifice Plaintiffs’ land to superimposed water, sand, and gravel in order to benefit the public diverting high…

      Continue Reading One Free Flood: CFC Declines To Reconsider Dismissal Of Takings Case After Arkansas Game

      Here are the latest (and last, presumably) briefs in the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States case, now in the Federal Circuit after remand by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court earlier reversed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that government-induced flooding could not be a taking unless it was “permanent,” and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for more.

      The Federal Circuit ordered supplemental briefing, with each party filing a brief simultaneously (initial briefs posted here), and now these, their respective briefs responding to the initial briefs:

      We’ll bring you more when and if the court schedules arguments, or when it issues a decision.

      Response Brief on Remand of Plaintiff-Cross Appellant Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Arkansas Game an...

      Supplemental Response Brief of the United States, Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 2009-…Continue Reading Final Briefs In Arkansas Game Remand (Flooding As A Taking)

      Here’s the BIO recently filed by the United States in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013). This brief responds to the cert petition which seeks Supreme Court review of Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

      In that case, the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might allow the use of the water he alleges was taken. The issue in the case is whether it is a taking for the government to cut off physical access to a property owner’s vested right to use water. The Court of Federal Claims had awarded $4.2 million in just compensation for the taking of Hage’s water rights.

      The BIO reformulates…

      Continue Reading USA’s BIO In Western Water Rights Takings Case

      Here’s the third and final amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. petition filed Mar. 22, 2013). The Pacific Legal Foundation brief argues:

      This case raises important questions regarding the common law of property ownership and the certainty of titles in property.

      . . . .

      As fully set out in the Petition, the Tenth Circuit’s rule directly conflicts with decisions of this Court as well as decisions from the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Seventh Circuit. Pet. at 17-34. The split of authority regarding ownership of abandoned railroad rights-of-way has been growing for years, and is well-documented. See, e.g., Pet. Cert. App. at 5-6, 22-24 (discussing split of authority); Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same); 11 Powell on Real Property § 78A (referring to the…

      Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In Railbanking Case: Growing And Well-Documented Circuit Split