Arrigoni Enters., LLC v. Town of Durham
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case that asked it to overturn Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, the 1985 decision requiring property owners to first seek compensation in state court before suing in federal court over a taking.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented from the denial, arguing the rule lacks constitutional support, has left many property owners unable to get their claims heard in any court, and has produced years of confusion among lower courts.
How it got here: A property owner asked the Supreme Court to review a lower-court ruling applying Williamson County's state-litigation requirement, and the Court denied the petition.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A property owner petitioned the Supreme Court to review a case implicating Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, a 1985 ruling that requires people who claim the government took their property without paying for it to first pursue compensation through state court procedures before suing in federal court under the Takings Clause.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have taken up a case to reconsider its rule that property owners must first sue in state court before bringing a federal takings claim?
Why it matters
Property owners who believe the government has taken their land without paying for it must generally sue in state court first before they can go to federal court, and often lose the chance to get a federal hearing at all afterward. Because the Court did not take this case, that two-step, court-narrowing process remains in place nationwide for now.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Supreme Court leaves Williamson County's state-litigation requirement in place for now, and lower courts will continue applying it — with the existing splits over whether it is jurisdictional or merely a discretionary rule that can sometimes be excused. No merits decision was made, and the dissenting justices signaled they would welcome a future case squarely presenting the question of whether to overrule Williamson County.
What this does not decide
The denial of certiorari does not resolve whether Williamson County's state-litigation requirement is constitutional or should be overruled. It simply means the Court chose not to hear this particular case; the underlying legal question about how takings claims must be litigated remains unsettled and open for a future case.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
“the justifications for [ Williamson County 's] state-litigation requirement are suspect, while its impact on takings plaintiffs is dramatic.”Thomas explains why he believes the Court should reconsider the Williamson County ripeness rule.
Justice Thomas argued the Court should have granted certiorari to reconsider Williamson County, contending its state-litigation requirement is inconsistent with the text and history of the Takings Clause, has combined with San Remo Hotel to strip property owners of any real federal forum, and has produced conflicting, confused lower-court rulings over whether the rule is jurisdictional or merely prudential. He would have overruled it.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Thomas's dissent argued that the Takings Clause's text — which says private property cannot be taken 'without just compensation' — makes payment a condition on the government's power to take property, not merely a remedy a property owner must chase down afterward.
- The dissent explained that Williamson County read the Clause differently, treating compensation as something that could come after the taking as long as some state procedure existed for seeking it, and that this reading conflicts with historical practice requiring compensation at the time of the taking.
- The dissent traced how a later decision, San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, compounded the problem: once a property owner sues in state court to satisfy Williamson County, federal courts often treat the state court's ruling as binding, closing off any real federal review of the same claim.
- The dissent noted that some state defendants remove these state-court suits to federal court and then argue the claim should be dismissed for not having been fully litigated in state court, leaving some property owners with no forum at all.
- The dissent pointed out that lower courts are split over whether the state-litigation requirement is jurisdictional or merely prudential, and further split over whether it can ever be excused, producing what it called an unresolved quagmire in the lower courts.