Case Summary
**Case Summary: Knick v. Township of Scott**
**Docket Number:** 5671347
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Decided:** 2019
**Citation:** 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019)
**Background:**
Knick v. Township of Scott revolves around the issue of property rights, specifically concerning the federal constitution's takings clause under the Fifth Amendment. The case emerged when Rose Mary Knick, a property owner in Scott Township, Pennsylvania, challenged a local ordinance that required her to permit public access to her land, which she argued effectively amounted to a taking of her property.
Knick contended that the ordinance granted the public a right of access to her property for cemetery visits, which she opposed. She filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the ordinance constituted a government taking without just compensation, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The key issue at hand was whether property owners could bring federal lawsuits for takings claims in cases where they had not sought just compensation through state procedures.
**Legal Issues:**
The central legal issue was whether a property owner could sue in federal court for a takings claim without first exhausting state remedies. The Supreme Court's decision in this case questioned two clauses: the "just compensation" clause of the Fifth Amendment and whether the state must first allow a property owner to seek compensation before a federal court case could be initiated.
**Supreme Court Decision:**
In a decision delivered by Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Knick, holding that a property owner may bring a lawsuit in federal court for a Fifth Amendment takings claim as soon as the taking occurs, rather than being required to first pursue compensation through state courts. This overturned a previous precedent set by the 1985 case, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had mandated that plaintiffs exhaust state remedies before seeking federal court intervention.
The Court reasoned that property owners should not be compelled to rely on state law before being afforded a federal forum to address their constitutional rights. This ruling effectively allowed property owners to bypass state courts and assert their takings claims directly in federal courts, emphasizing the importance of protecting property rights under the Constitution.
**Conclusion:**
Knick v. Township of Scott is a significant case in property law as it reshaped the legal landscape surrounding the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ruling clarified that property owners have the right to seek federal relief for takings without being obligated to exhaust state remedies, balancing the scales in favor of property rights against government actions. This case reaffirms the context in which federal courts can be approached for constitutional claims regarding property ownership.