Judges can undo a constitutional catch-22
Judges can undo a constitutional catch-22
Rose Mary Knick lives on a 90-acre parcel of farmland in Pennsylvania that her family owns since 1970. But according to the local government, the property is not entirely theirs. In 2012, it enacted an ordinance that required owners of "cemeteries" to allow public access without restrictions to their lands and subject them to inspections. In April 2013, a county code enforcement officer searched Ms. Knick's land without her consent, concluded that some stones there were actually grave markers and were considered part of the area a "cemetery" subject to the law. If Ms. Knick refuses access to the inspectors or any other person, she could be fined up to $ 600 per day.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Knick v. Scott Township. Judges have the opportunity to ensure that people whose property rights have been violated by state and local governments can spend their day in federal court as well as victims of violations of other constitutional rights.
In most situations, granting outsiders a general right to trespass on private land is a Fifth Amendment takeover, and the government must pay the landlord "fair compensation." case. Although she is before the superior court, no federal judge has considered her case on the merits.
Photo:
iStock / Getty Images
Mrs. Knick is not alone. The city of Ponce Inlet, Florida, encouraged homeowners Simone and Lyder Johnson to spend several million dollars in preparation to develop 10 properties they owned in the area, only to prohibit development after the balance of power in The City Council changed in favor of the opponents of the project.
The obstacle that lies in the way of Ms. Knick, the Johnsons and many others is Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985). According to this precedent, a claimant who claims that the government has taken his property by regulation can not file a case in federal court until he has first obtained a "final decision" from the state regulatory agencies and has "exhausted" all of the possible resources of state courts. Even then, it is often impossible to file a federal case, because the rules of procedure generally prevent federal judges from reviewing cases decided in state court.
In a traditional case of eminent domain, the government takes the property directly and there is no dispute: it owes you compensation. Cases of "inverse conviction" of the type governed by Williamson County They arise when the government restricts property rights but denies that intakes have occurred. The owner then has to prove that he is entitled to compensation.
Williamson County It is a Catch-22 for property owners who are victims of state or local governments. They can not file claims in federal court unless they go first to the state court. But the mere fact of obtaining a decision from a state court prevents them from entering the federal court later. Such a rule has never been applied to other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs who claim that state or local governments have violated their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or equal protection are not required to "exhaust" Byzantine state resources before filing a federal case.
The standard justification for Williamson County is that a state or local government has not really "taken" property until its actions have been finalized by a regulatory agency and defended by state courts. By the same reasoning, one could argue that a state has not really "censored" speech or "suppressed" religion until bureaucrats and judges maintain the policy in question.
In many cases, there may be little difference between state and federal courts. But in some, particularly when the problems are difficult and unclear, state courts may be prejudiced against property owners because judges have close connections with government officials who are defending their actions. This is a particularly pronounced risk in the many states where judges are elected.
The time has come for the court to set a badly flawed precedent and give the claims the same access to the federal court available for violations of other constitutional rights.
Mr. Somin is a law professor at George Mason University and an adjunct professor at the Cato Institute. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and The Limits of Eminent Domain," and co-authored a report by a friend of the court in the Knick case.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', '369524843414444');
fbq('track', 'PageView');
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario