Aditya Bamzai

The Takings Clause, the Tucker Act, and Knick v. Township of Scott

Co-author(s)
Goldman, David N.
PUBLISHER
Yale Journal of Regulation: Notice & Comment
DATE
2018-10-9
 

Abstract

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott, a case that presents the question whether “the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims.” At issue in Knick is the proper interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that “private property” shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Williamson County, the Court had previously held that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation” for a taking, such as an avenue to sue in state court for inverse condemnation, then “the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used th[at] procedure and been denied just compensation” by the relevant state or local tribunal. The Williamson County Court contended that “no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied” and that the state government had not denied just compensation until its state tribunals had spoken.

Citation

Aditya Bamzai & David N. Goldman, The Takings Clause, the Tucker Act, and Knick v. Township of Scott, Yale Journal of Regulation: Notice & Comment (October 9, 2018).
 

More in This Category