Forthcoming article, A Minimalist Solution to Williamson County

I’m pleased to announce that I have accepted an offer from the Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum to publish my article, A Minimalist Solution to Williamson County. You can find a working draft here.

Here is the abstract to the article:

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson County relegated takings claims coming under the Fifth Amendment to a second-class of federal rights. Before a takings plaintiff can sue in federal court, she must first seek compensation through an “adequate state procedure.” Many federal courts have held that requirement means a takings litigant must first seek compensation through state courts if that state provides an inverse condemnation proceeding. But if a takings litigant sues in state court, she will be unable to sue in federal court because of issue preclusion. This effectively shuts the federal courthouse door to many property owners. Only two Supreme Court justices have indicated any interest in revisiting Williamson County. Therefore, land use attorneys who are concerned about federal court access for takings plaintiffs should craft a case that would attract the Court’s attention. This Article argues that land use lawyers should present the Court with a case in which the property owner has used a non-judicial procedure to seek compensation (e.g., asking for compensation from a county board). The Court could then rule that such a non-judicial procedure, such as seeking compensation from a county board, is an “adequate state procedure” that satisfies Williamson County’s requirements. This ruling would minimize the negative effects that Williamson County has wrought on takings plaintiffs.

Did Missouri’s governor just moot Trinity Luteran v. Pauley?

Days before the Supreme Court is set to hear Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens instructed the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) to allow religious organizations to apply, and receive grants. Because of this new order, Trinity Lutheran may be mooted. Indeed, the Supreme Court just today called for the parties’ views on how Governor Greitens’ order affects their case.

I’ve recently written on this case here. But a short backgrounder is appropriate. Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a generally available grant from DNR to obtain materials to build a playground. Although Trinity Lutheran Church had one of the highest ranking applications, DNR denied the church a grant solely because it is a religious institution. DNR cited Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, a provision in its state constitution that prohibits Missouri from supporting religious groups. Thus, Trinity Lutheran Church sued DNR, alleging that it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause by denying it a grant.

Continue reading