SIX LESSONS FOR MUNICIPAL
LAWYERS:
CITY OF MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES AT MONTEREY, LTD.
continued from previous page
| II. |
USE DEL MONTE DUNES
TO SHOW THAT TAKINGS CLAIMANTS SHOULD LITIGATE IN STATE
COURT FIRST. |
Where a landowner challenges state or local
government action as a taking, Williamson County Regional
Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985),
requires the landowner to seek compensation in state court before
proceeding in federal court. Williamson County made
clear that this requirement is compelled by "the nature of
the constitutional right." 473 U.S. at 194-95 & n.13.
Despite Williamson County's clarity on
this point, certain takings claimants have argued that this
requirement is prudential, not constitutional, and thus subject
to change either by the Congress or the courts. The National
Association of Home Builders has pressed hard for legislation
that purports, among other things, to allow takings claimants to
proceed directly to federal court without suing in state court
first. (In the 105th Congress, the primary NAHB bill was H.R.
1534; in the 106th Congress, the bill has been reintroduced as
H.R. 2372.) Others have requested the Supreme Court to reconsider
Williamson County's "state-remedy"
requirement. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Rainey
Bros. Constr. Co. v. Memphis and Shelby County Bd. of Adjustment,
No. 99-60 (U.S.) (filed July 6, 1999).
Del Monte Dunes emphatically reaffirms
that Williamson County's state-remedy requirement is
constitutionally based. E.g., 119 S. Ct. at 1639 (the landowner
"would have suffered no constitutional injury" if an
adequate postdeprivation remedy had been available) (citing Williamson
County) (majority); id. at 1641 ("there is no
constitutional violation 'unless or until the state fails to
provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy'") (quoting Williamson
County) (plurality).
As a result, Del Monte Dunes should
prove very useful to municipalities in arguing against efforts in
the Congress and the courts to undo Williamson County's
state-remedy requirement. The ruling reaffirms that the Congress
has no authority to eliminate the state-remedy requirement, and
that the Court should retain the requirement to preserve the
fundamental character of the constitutional right to just
compensation under the Takings Clause.
|
