Knick v. Township of Scott (17-647)

argument 17-647

Knick v. Township of Scott

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core takings claim at issue in Nick v. Township of Scott?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen six forty seven, Nick versus the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

Paul D. Clement 0:07

Mr Bremer. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Requiring Miss Nick to prosecute her federal takings claim in state court conflicts with Section nineteen eighty three and is incompatible with the nature of her claim. Her claim is not based on the government's failure to compensate, it's based on the township's Failure to recognize that the imposition of an access easement is a Fifth Amendment taking that triggers a compensation requirement. Because lack of compensation is not an element of her federal takings claim, state compensation remedies do not bear on the presentation of the claim in federal court.

John G. Roberts 0:45

How is it not an element of her claim? There's no violation unless she is denied just compensation.

Paul D. Clement 0:51

Well, Your Honor, in the inverse condemnation context, uh the problem is not that the government is violating the Just Compensation Clause by failing to pay. The problem is that it's depriving of her a right to just compensation because it does not recognize that it's an invasion of her property is a taking that triggers the entitlement to compensation.

John G. Roberts 1:11

Well, I thought that was the whole point of an inverse condemnation. They recognize that they owe her money, and the whole point of the process, which can be fairly elaborate, is that they're just trying to figure out how much. Um if it's not enough, then she can bring a a claim. But it seems to me that It's imposing a considerable burden on the state or the local entities to say you've got to pay right away. Uh in other words, go through some sort of process to figure out what you owe before you can even You n you know it's it's simply a process to figure out how much is due. I don't know why it's such a problem to make her go through that in the initial instance.

Paul D. Clement 1:49

To f well, Your Honor, it helps remember that condemnation and inverse condemnation takings are quite different. In the condemnation case uh which um corresponds to what you were just describing, the government condemns the property and then it's just a process of of figuring out where and how she's gonna get her money. But when the question is whether there is even a constitutional entitlement to compensation, that before I'm

Elena Kagan 2:10

sorry, doesn't that what condemnation, whether it's regular or inverse, does? The first question the Court answers is, Is there a taking? So it does reach the constitutional question. Um even in a um in a regular common uh um Condemnation proceeding. they have to decide whether it the government has a public interest or not. That's what makes it constitutional. So I don't understand. Can I ask another question, however? Assuming That you were right. And that you had a federal cause of action, or should have one under nineteen eighty three? When this case goes to a federal court Why would a district court B Um abuse its discretion for abstaining under any of the three doctrines. Pullman, Louisiana power and light.

Elena Kagan 3:07

or Colorado River. All of them say that district courts can abstain when a legal issue involves state law, and that state law could obviate the federal proceedings. So One of two things can happen in the State Court below. They say no taking. And then There's no taking. Or second, there is a taking and the inverse condemnation proceeding will provide the remedy. So in many ways this obviates the proceeding altogether.

Paul D. Clement 3:45

Well if I could Your Honor, if I could answer the abstention Question first. Williamson County is different than any known abstention doctrine. For instance, in Quackenbush, this court uh held that a damages claim that the federal court couldn't abstain from uh a constitutional claim for damages under Burford. The other abstention doctrines deal when there's a explicit state claim that might resolve the federal question but there is why

Elena Kagan 4:12

isn't that the case here? The whole issue is whether this graveyard law i is a uh was inherent in the property she took. Meaning That's what I understood the legal question was.