Accepting the Relegation of Takings Claims to State Courts: The Federal Courts' Misguided Attempts to Avoid Preclusion Under Williamson County

Abstract

This article argues that the denial of federal jurisdiction to plaintiffs in takings cases against state and local governments is not only consistent with Supreme Court precedent, but is also the more appropriate jurisdictional arrangement. The state procedures requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank requires plaintiffs in taking cases first to adjudicate state inverse condemnation claims in state court before filing federal taking claims in federal court. Preclusion doctrines, however, bar relitigation in most cases, effectively removing federal court jurisdiction in taking cases. This article critiques several prominent judicial responses to this so-called "preclusion problem." The federal courts' attempts to avoid preclusion are often based on erroneous legal analyses, they do not effectively guarantee a federal forum in taking cases, and they have further confused the already-complex area of takings law. Given the difficulties with the federal courts' responses, this article ultimately asks whether the "preclusion problem" requires a solution and concludes that these unusually-local constitutional claims are more appropriately adjudicated in state courts.

Keywords: takings, preclusion, jurisdiction