The divided Supreme Court delivered a victory for property owners Friday. Justice Elena Kagan was infuriated and fought hard against it. She accused the conservative majority of smashing hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.”
The Supreme Court ruled that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property. They don’t have to spend a fortune in the State courts that are far less friendly to the common man and that have something to gain.
The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.
Kagan is complaining about precedent on a ruling [not the Constitution itself] that has since left the common man, property owners with few resources, left to the mercy of a burdensome court system.
KAGAN DOESN’T WANT ANY PRECEDENT OVERTURNED
This is the second time the conservative justices have overturned a controlling precedent, leaving Kagan to ask which precedent the high court will overrule next.
“Just last month, when the Court overturned another longstanding precedent, Justice [Stephen] Breyer penned a dissent,” Kagan wrote. “He wrote of the dangers of reversing legal course ‘only because five members of a later Court’ decide that an earlier ruling was incorrect. He concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.’”
“Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan added. “Now one may wonder yet again.”
“It is hard to overstate the value, in a country like ours, of stability in law,” said Kagan.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
That’s rich coming from an ideological member of the lawless party.
This affects areas, such as coastal areas, that are under the strict control of the local government and oppressive regulations. In a federal court, complainants might get a fair shake.
Property owners and developers often have complained that zoning rules and other state and local regulations effectively take their property for the public benefit and that the Constitution requires that they are paid just compensation.
NPR reports:
The court’s decision came in the case of Rose Mary Knick, who owns 90 acres of land in Scott Township, Pa. Knick’s home and a grazing area for her horses are on the land, as well as a small cemetery where her neighbors’ ancestors are allegedly buried.
When the town enacted a rule requiring all cemeteries be open to the public during daytime hours, Knick went to state court seeking a judgment that the state had in effect taken her property. When the town withdrew its notice that she was violating the local cemetery law, the state court said Knick could not prove that she was being harmed.
So, she went to the federal courts, which threw out her case based on decades-old Supreme Court decisions that have consistently required property owners to go to the state courts before appealing to the federal courts.
Property owners can go right to the feds:
The court majority on Friday said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.
“We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden” on a property owner’s claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
SHE WILL GET A DAY IN COURT WITH A FAIR HEARING
Knick argued that in adopting the ordinance in 2012 and applying it to her, local officials were, in essence, taking her property and opening it to the public without paying her for it.
A federal court threw out Knick’s case, ruling she had to go to state court first. But after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Knick will be able to pursue her case in federal court.
The big government leftists on the court are unsurprisingly infuriated.
NPR is worried about ‘deep state’ haters getting what they want, but this case is about giving the government back to the people.
Local government has abused laws of forfeiture, eminent domain, environmental extremism, and fake blight for years. This will help alleviate the problem.
Meanwhile, the leftists on the court and Democrats are enraged.
wpDiscuz
