WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that calls into question a 30-year-precedent that a plaintiff cannot file a takings claim in federal court until all state court options have been exhausted.
The case began when the Pennsylvania township of Scott told Rose Mary Knick that she lives on a historical burial ground that, under a new township ordinance, must be open to the public during all daylight hours. A city official said civil penalties should be imposed because Knick would not make her land open to the public.
Knick filed a takings claims in state court, but then followed it with a takings claims in federal court. The federal court, citing the Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank decision of 1985, found that the claims could not be argued in federal court until Knick had exhausted her options in state court.
Most of the justices seemed hesitant to overrule the Williamson precedent.
“Why don’t we let sleeping dogs lie?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who joined Knick’s lawyer to argue in her favor.
“Williamson County’s rationale has never been explained and has effectively closed the doors to this type of claim,” Francisco responded.
Though the merits of the case were not being argued, Justice Samuel Alito seemed frustrated that Scott township‘s lawyer could not answer whether township officials owe Knick compensation.
“You represent the state,” said Alito. “You have taken her property and denied her compensation.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also expressed some sympathy for Knick.
“We don’t say a First or Fourth Amendment merit claim is incomplete until the state process exhausts itself,” said Gorsuch. “Why do we here?”
Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be looking for a compromise to avoid overruling Williamson.
“I think you have a pretty good argument,” said Kagan to the township’s lawyer. “I don’t think Williamson understood that the end of going through a state process would be that you would never be able to bring a federal claim.” Only a defendant can seek removal from a state court to federal court, which Knick believes is unfair.