Arrigoni Enters., LLC v. Town of Durham
Headline: Court refuses to revisit Williamson County takings rule, denying review and leaving the state-litigation requirement in place for now despite a Justice urging reconsideration.
Holding:
- Leaves state-litigation requirement in place, forcing property owners to pursue state compensation procedures first.
- Makes it harder for property owners to obtain federal review of takings claims.
- Enables procedural gamesmanship like removal and preclusion that can block any court forum.
Summary
Background
The Court denied a petition asking it to reconsider a long-standing rule about the Takings Clause. The opinion notes amici briefing was allowed. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented from the denial and urged full review to overrule Williamson County, which requires property owners to seek state compensation procedures before federal takings claims are heard.
Reasoning
Justice Thomas explained that Williamson County treats payment of just compensation as a post-taking remedy rather than a prerequisite to taking property. He argued that this view conflicts with the Fifth Amendment’s text and historical practice. He also described how San Remo and lower-court responses have amplified problems: state lawsuits can block later federal review, and tactics like removal and preclusion can leave owners with no effective forum.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to take the case, the state-litigation requirement remains in effect. Property owners alleging takings will generally need to pursue state compensation procedures first, making federal review harder. The dissent warns this situation allows procedural maneuvering that can prevent any court from deciding the constitutional claim. This denial is not a merits ruling and the dissent urges future reconsideration.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Kennedy) dissented from the denial of review, arguing Williamson County is ahistorical and atextual and calling for the Court to overrule it to restore stronger protection for property owners.
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?