Mosher v. City of Phoenix
Headline: Property owners may raise federal takings and due-process claims against cities in federal court; Court reversed dismissal and allowed federal courts to decide whether municipal street projects violate constitutional rights.
Holding: The Court ruled that a property owner’s allegation that a city, acting under state authority, is attempting to take land without compensation and without due process presented a substantial federal question, so federal jurisdiction was required.
- Allows landowners to sue cities in federal court over alleged unconstitutional takings.
- Permits federal courts to decide federal constitutional claims despite parallel state-law issues.
- Local street projects may face federal lawsuits before state-law questions are resolved.
Summary
Background
A landowner in Phoenix sued to stop the city from taking her property for a street improvement. Lower federal courts dismissed her suits for lack of federal jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship and the cases raised state-law questions about the city’s authority. The landowner’s complaints also alleged that the city, acting under state authority, was trying to take her property without compensation and without due process, invoking the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Reasoning
The key question was whether those federal constitutional allegations were substantial enough to give the federal courts power to hear the case. The Court explained that when a person claims a city, acting under color of state law, is violating a private right guaranteed by the Constitution, that claim can present a substantial federal question. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that the District Court should not have refused jurisdiction and that the case must be considered on its federal merits in federal court. The Court therefore reversed the dismissals.
Real world impact
This ruling means property owners can pursue federal constitutional claims against cities over alleged takings or deprivation of due process, even when state-law issues are also present. The decision is about the federal court’s power to hear the case, not the final outcome on the taking or compensation, so the underlying dispute must still be decided on the merits in the appropriate court once jurisdiction is resolved.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?