In its recent decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned more than three decades of property law precedent that the Court explained had made the Takings Clause the "poor relation" of the Bill of Rights. In doing so, the Court gave property owners an important new option when government takes their property.

Rose Knick owned a home on 90 acres of land that included a small graveyard. Family cemeteries are fairly common in Pennsylvania. Scott Township enacted an ordinance requiring that "all cemeteries be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours." Knick sued in federal court on the basis that the town ordinance had violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that a government may not take private property for public use without paying just compensation. However, the court dismissed the case because Knick had not first pursued an inverse condemnation action in state court. In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court required property owners to first ask for and be denied just compensation for their taken property in state court before filing a takings claim in federal court. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed based on Williamson County.

The U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the practical effect that Williamson County had alongside the full faith and credit statute. Under that statute, a federal court must give full faith and credit, and therefore preclusive effect, to a state court's decision on any issue that is subsequently before the federal court. Therefore, although a property owner could not go to federal court without going to state court first, if she went to state court and lost, her takings claim would be barred in federal court. In Knick, the Supreme Court expressly overruled this "preclusion trap." The Court clarified that it is the taking, and not the subsequent denial of just compensation, that triggers the protections of the Takings Clause.

Following Knick, property owners need not first file suit and lose in state court before heading to federal court. In some cases, this may not be a helpful option, since federal courts may be less familiar with the state-law property issues that will inevitably be involved. However, in other cases, Knick could provide a valuable strategic option to property owners when there is reason to believe that a state court may give too much deference to the government.

The members of our Land Development, Zoning & Environmental Practice Group have extensive experience in advising, resolving, and litigating eminent domain, inverse condemnation, and exactions claims. For more information, please contact us.