The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts’ “Prudential” Answer to Williamson County’s Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement

This article reviews recent federal court decisions that have loosened the state litigation ripeness barrier to federal takings review based on its “prudential” character. Part II provides relevant background on Williamson County and the development of the state litigation rule. It explores the logic underlying the rule and the problems it causes in application. Part III reviews the judicial shift away from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule—under which compliance with the rule is a prerequisite to a court’s power to hear a takings claim—to a prudential view in which application of the state litigation rule lies within the court’s discretion. The article then reviews circuit court decisions that have declined to enforce the state litigation rule. It concludes that courts act correctly when they view the prudential nature of the state litigation rule as a license to balance fairness and other considerations in deciding whether to apply or not apply the rule, and that this understanding provides a partial solution to the jurisdictional confusion and inequity resulting from Williamson County

You Can Check Out But You Can Never Leave: The Story of San Remo Hotel -- The Supreme Court Relegates Federal Takings Claims to State Courts Under a Rule Intended to Ripen the Claims for Federal Review

On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City of San Francisco, holding that property owners with “takings” claims arising under the Fifth Amendment could not obtain federal review after litigating in state court in compliance with the ripeness requirements of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. The case presented the specific question of whether federal takings claimants could invoke an exception to claim and issue preclusion doctrines under England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners because Williamson County forced them to involuntarily litigate in state court. This Article reviews the San Remo decision, criticizing the majority’s narrow interpretation of England and the result in banishing takings claims to state courts. The Article then explores the Williamson County ripeness requirement, and condemns the majority’s decision for failing to explicitly address Williamson County’s flaws. Finally, the Article considers whether San Remo closes the federal courthouse door to takings claims seeking noncompensatory relief

The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts’ “Prudential” Answer to Williamson County’s Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement

This article reviews recent federal court decisions that have loosened the state litigation ripeness barrier to federal takings review based on its “prudential” character. Part II provides relevant background on Williamson County and the development of the state litigation rule. It explores the logic underlying the rule and the problems it causes in application. Part III reviews the judicial shift away from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule—under which compliance with the rule is a prerequisite to a court’s power to hear a takings claim—to a prudential view in which application of the state litigation rule lies within the court’s discretion. The article then reviews circuit court decisions that have declined to enforce the state litigation rule. It concludes that courts act correctly when they view the prudential nature of the state litigation rule as a license to balance fairness and other considerations in deciding whether to apply or not apply the rule, and that this understanding provides a partial solution to the jurisdictional confusion and inequity resulting from Williamson County

Overcoming Williamson County\u27s Troubling State Procedures Rule: How the England Reservation, Issue Preclusion Exceptions, and the Inadequacy Exception Open the Federal Courthouse Door to Ripe Takings Claims

This article discusses an avenue available to takings claimants so that they may open the nearly closed door of the federal courts. In Williamson County, the United States Supreme Court established two ripeness prongs that create powerful barriers to landowners seeking to have their takings claims heard on the merits in federal court. Through an in depth analysis of the facts and litigation of this case and others, the author assesses the foundation of the state procedures requirements and concludes it is not required by the Takings Clause. The article scrutinizes the rule\u27s fundamental unfairness and error in its application. Additionally, the author addresses exceptions that should allow many takings claimants to raise their federal constitutional claim in the federal courts

The Right to Exclude Others From Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right

This Essay discusses the fundamental nature of the right to exclude as it emanates not only from decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court but from selected federal circuit and state appellate court decisions. As appears below, the right to exclude applies to both government and private activity on private land, whether the activity is the result of governmental attempts to secure a public interest or of theories associated with stronger rights emanating from custom and public trust

What Property Rights: The California Coastal Commission's History of Abusing Land Rights and Some Thoughts on the Underlying Causes

[No abstract