588 U.S. 180 (2019) · 2019
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Property RightsTakings ClauseFederal CourtsCivil Rights LitigationLocal GovernmentLandmark
Summary
The Court overruled the rule that forced property owners to seek compensation in state court before bringing federal takings claims. A takings plaintiff may go to federal court once the government takes property without paying just compensation.
Background & Context
Scott Township adopted an ordinance requiring cemeteries to be open to the public during daylight hours. Knick challenged the ordinance, but lower federal courts dismissed her takings claim under Williamson County because she had not first pursued compensation in state court.
The Question Before the Court
Must a property owner seek just compensation in state court before bringing a federal Takings Clause claim under Section 1983?
Petitioner
Rose Mary Knick
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Knick argued that a Fifth Amendment violation occurs when the government takes property without paying just compensation, so she could sue in federal court immediately.
- She argued that the state-litigation rule created a trap because state-court litigation could preclude later federal review.
Respondent
Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The township argued that a taking is not unconstitutional until the state fails to provide just compensation through available procedures.
- The township argued that Williamson County was workable and should be retained under stare decisis.
The Holding
A property owner has a Fifth Amendment takings claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when the government takes property without paying just compensation, and may bring that federal claim in federal court at that time. The Court overruled Williamson County's state-litigation requirement.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
5-4
Vote
Joined decision
10 justices
Justice Kavanaugh
Majority
BM
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
Justice Thomas
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice
JG
John Jr.
Majority
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Majority
Justice Gorsuch
Majority
Justice Alito
Majority
SA
Samuel Jr.
Majority
Dissented
6 justices
Justice Kagan
Dissent
EK
Elena Kagan
Dissent
RB
Ruth Ginsburg
Dissent
Justice Sotomayor
Dissent
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Dissent
SG
Stephen Breyer
Dissent
What this means for you
Knick opened federal court doors for many property owners bringing Takings Clause claims against state and local governments. It did not decide whether Scott Township's ordinance actually took Knick's property; it decided when and where a federal takings claim may be filed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court overruled Williamson County's state-litigation requirement.
- A takings claim exists when property is taken without just compensation, not only after state compensation procedures fail.
- The decision allows Section 1983 takings claims to start in federal court.
- The Court did not decide whether the cemetery-access ordinance itself was a taking.
- Knick was argued once in October 2018 and reargued on January 16, 2019 after Justice Kavanaugh joined the Court.
Decision
5-4 majority opinion
- Citation
- 588 U.S. 180 (2019)
- Vote
- 5-4
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- October 3, 2018
- Decided
- June 21, 2019
- Term
- 2018
- Opinion author
- John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a five-justice majority joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas concurred. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.