The Use Of Strict Environmental Regulations May Just Have Been Undone.....
by the Supreme Court in Knick v. The Township of Scott. The requirement to exhaust your state remedies before going to the Federal courts claiming an unconstitutional taking has been eliminated. I would expect the next step would be for the Supreme Court to set a very low bar for which governmental actions constitute a taking, thereby triggering the 5th amendment requirement for just compensation. Right now the Lake Tahoe cases set the limits for government action that does NOT trigger this requirement. The Court, as it is presently comprised, may not have the respect for precedent they all claimed they did during their confirmation hearings. Wetlands laws, environmentally based zoning regulations, limitations on development, the Endangered Species Act, flood hazard rules, coastal regulations and any other rationally based laws that limit development potential for sound reasons may all come under scrutiny-and be declared as unjust taking of property rights next. Right wing property rights groups are all licking their chops right now. Oh well, we never really needed those pesky environmental laws anyway.....right?
In its long-awaited opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that plaintiffs alleging that local governments have violated the takings clause may proceed directly in federal court, rather than first litigating in state court. The opinion overrules a 34-year-old precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, triggering a sharp dissent and another debate among the justices about the meaning of stare decisis. The majority opinion also rests on a reading of the takings clause—that a constitutional violation occurs at the moment property is “taken,” even if compensation is paid later—that may have consequences beyond this case.
The takings clause of the federal Constitution provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This takings case arose from a dispute between petitioner Rose Mary Knick and the township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Knick has a small graveyard on her property, and the township attempted to enforce against her an ordinance requiring such properties to be open to the public during daytime hours. Knick alleged an unconstitutional taking, but a federal court dismissed her suit because she had not first sought compensation in state court.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-overrules-takings-precedent-allowing-more-suits-in-federal-court/
