Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation
On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California law granting union organizers the “right to access” an employer’s private property violated the United States Constitution because it took the employer’s property for public use without providing compensation. In the decision Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Supreme Court ruled that a law allowing third parties to access a private employer’s premises, even for purposes of union organizing activity on a temporary basis (three hours per day, 120 days of the year) amounted to a physical taking of the employers’ property without just compensation. In its decision to invalidate the California law, the Supreme Court was careful to note that no employee resided on the employer’s premises. In ruling for the employer and finding that the California labor regulation violated the United States Constitution, the Court distinguished between laws such as California’s that would allow a physical occupation of private land by a third-party and laws that are permissible regulations of the owner’s use of private property.
The Court ruled a taking occurs when “the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else – by whatever means – or has instead restricted a property owner’s ability to use his own property.” Cedar Point, Slip op. p. 7. In an effort to distinguish the California labor regulation at issue in the Hassid case from civil rights and other laws that govern the conduct of businesses open to the public, the Court noted that “[l]imitations on how a business generally open to the public may treat individuals on the premises are readily distinguishable from regulations granting a right to invade property closed to the public.” Cedar Point, Slip op., pp. 14-15.
Defining what can oftentimes be a nebulous standard of when a law constitutes an unconstitutional taking rather than a lawful regulation of use, the Supreme Court emphasized that a hallmark of a government taking is when the government takes away an owner’s right to exclude others from its property, “one of the most treasured rights of property ownership.” Cedar Point, Slip op., p. 7. As in all takings, the United States Constitution mandates the remedy for the property owner is compensation as opposed to a return of the property.
Rails-to-Trails in Kansas – Understanding the interplay of state and federal law when converting abandoned railroad rights-of-way to public recreational trails
This webinar walks through the federal program that authorizes the conversion of abandoned railroad rights-of-way into public recreational trails. Lewis Rice member Meghan S. Largent looks at the federal courts’ interpretation of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983 and how, in certain circumstances, the federal law violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which holds, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” She focuses specifically on Kansas state law and how the federal law often works to preempt Kansas law that would otherwise direct that the land underneath abandoned railroad rights-of-way be returned to the full use and enjoyment of the adjoining property owner. Finally, the program addresses the remedies to landowners who find themselves affected by a federally authorized rail-trail conversion.
Members of Kansas Farm Bureau may click the link under "Resources" below to access the recording.
Meghan focuses her practice on representing landowners nationwide whose property has been taken by the federal government without just compensation. In addition to establishing when the government is liable for taking land, Meghan’s practice centers largely on establishing the value of the land taken.
Responding to Project Changes: Valuing a Taking When Government Action is Ongoing
The American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education (ALI CLE) 2020 Conference for Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation will be held in Nashville, TN on January 23-25, 2020. Lewis Rice member Meghan S. Largent along with judges, appraisers, consultants, and law professors round out the prestigious group of over 60 speakers sharing their knowledge and experience with attendees. Meghan will speak on Friday, January 24 at 3:00 p.m. on valuing a federal taking when government action is ongoing.
To learn more and to register for the conference, click under "Resources" below.
Meghan focuses her practice on representing landowners nationwide whose property has been taken by the federal government without just compensation. In addition to establishing when the government is liable for taking land, Meghan’s practice centers largely on establishing the value of the land taken.
Supreme Court Overturns Williamson County
June 21, 2019 saw a significant win for property owners. The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott (“Knick”), overturned its finding in the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (“Williamson County”).
In Williamson County, the Supreme Court held that a property owner who was claiming an unlawful taking by a local government under the Fifth Amendment must first pursue an inverse-condemnation action for “just compensation” in state court before bringing a claim in federal court. The Supreme Court reasoned that no constitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs until the property owner is denied “just compensation” at the end of the state court proceeding. In practice, this meant that property owners had to litigate their takings claims to finality before the state court and lose before they could access the federal courts. Further, property owners who lost at the state court level could be denied access to the federal courts on the grounds that the state court had already decided the constitutional issue.
In Knick, the Supreme Court held that Williamson County was wrongly decided and that an inverse-condemnation action can be brought in federal court at any time, without the need for a property owner to first bring a state court action. The basis for overturning Williamson County was the Supreme Court’s reading of the Fifth Amendment – that a constitutional violation occurs as of the effective date of the “taking” (when the local regulation takes effect), not later when “just compensation” is denied.
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Knick leaves certain questions unanswered, it marks a victory for property owners pursuing unlawful local government takings claims insofar as it clears the way for them to file suit directly in federal court. Case in point – property owners in New York City have recently sued the State of New York in federal court to challenge updated state rent control laws, with one of the claims being a Fifth Amendment “taking” without “just compensation.”