In Knick v. Township of Scott, decided June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court held 5–4 that a property owner whose property is taken without compensation can sue directly in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without first exhausting remedies in state court. The ruling overturned Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, a 1985 precedent that had required property owners to pursue state inverse condemnation suits before filing federal takings claims.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.
The Case That Started It
Rose Mary Knick owned a ninety-acre farm in Scott Township, Pennsylvania. On her land sat a small family burial ground. The township passed an ordinance requiring all cemeteries, public or private, to be “free and open and accessible to the public during the day.” A code enforcement officer entered Knick’s property without a warrant, identified headstones, and issued a violation notice. To comply, Knick would have had to let strangers walk her land in daylight or face fines.
She sued in state court. The township withdrew the notice and paused enforcement, leaving her case in limbo with nothing active to fight. When she then tried to bring a federal takings claim, the lower courts told her she had to go back to state court and exhaust state remedies first. The Supreme Court took the case to decide whether that requirement should survive.
The Trap the Ruling Dismantled
Williamson County created a two-part ripeness test in 1985. The government had to reach a final decision about how the property could be used, and the owner had to seek compensation through the state’s inverse condemnation procedure and be denied.2Justia. Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank The idea was that no constitutional violation existed until the state refused to pay.
The problem showed up in practice. Owners filed state inverse condemnation suits, litigated for years, and often lost. When they turned to federal court with their constitutional claim, the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738) required federal courts to honor the state court’s rulings. If the state court had already decided the key questions, the federal court treated them as resolved. The federal claim was dead on arrival.3Justia. San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco
Commentators called this the “San Remo trap,” after the 2005 case that made the pattern unmistakable. Federal courts sent owners to state court. State courts resolved the issues. Federal courts then said those issues couldn’t be relitigated. No other constitutional right worked this way. Free speech, unreasonable search, and due process claims went straight to federal court. Property rights alone required an exhaustion detour that usually became a dead end.
Why the Court Overruled a 34-Year Precedent
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, called Williamson County “not just wrong” but “exceptionally ill founded.” He pointed out that prior decisions had recognized a property owner’s right to compensation at the moment of taking, not at some later point when a state court weighs in. The state-litigation requirement drew its logic from loose language in an earlier case and clashed with the broader line of authority.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.
The requirement also proved unworkable. It was supposed to let owners ripen claims in state court and then move to federal court if needed, but San Remo‘s preclusion rule blocked that second step. The 1985 Court hadn’t considered that consequence.
On reliance, the majority found little worth protecting. The rule didn’t guide anyone’s primary conduct; it was procedural gatekeeping. Overturning it wouldn’t expose governments to new liability, since the same takings claims would simply move courthouses. Governments that owed compensation under the Fifth Amendment owed it either way.
What the Dissent Said
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, framed the case around federalism. Land-use regulation is “perhaps the quintessential state activity,” she wrote, and takings claims usually turn on state-law questions: what counts as a property interest, what the owner actually lost, whether a regulation went too far. State courts, in her view, are better equipped to answer those questions, and the ruling would send “a flood of complex state-law issues to federal courts.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.
Kagan also argued the majority overstated the San Remo problem. Congress could fix the preclusion issue by amending the Full Faith and Credit Act. She warned that under the new rule, government regulators imposing ordinary land-use restrictions would “almost inescapably become constitutional malefactors,” since any restriction imposed without simultaneous payment could be framed as a Fifth Amendment violation.
When a Taking Violates the Constitution
The most consequential piece of the holding is its answer to the timing question. The majority ruled that “a property owner acquires a right to compensation immediately upon an uncompensated taking” because the taking itself violates the Fifth Amendment.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. The owner doesn’t have to wait for a court to confirm the violation or for the government to formally deny payment. The violation is complete the instant property is taken without compensation.
The Fifth Amendment’s text supports this reading. It says private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation,” framing compensation and taking as simultaneous requirements rather than sequential events.4Constitution Annotated. Amdt5.10.1 Overview of Takings Clause If the government physically occupies your land or imposes a regulation that eliminates all economic use of your property, and it doesn’t pay you at the same time, the constitutional violation has already happened.
How Property Owners Bring Federal Takings Claims Now
With the state-litigation requirement gone, owners file directly in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute that lets anyone sue a state or local government actor who deprives them of a constitutional right while acting under color of law.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights The statute was technically available before Knick, but Williamson County had blocked the door. Now it’s open.
Federal filing carries practical advantages. Judges apply federal constitutional standards from the start rather than filtering the claim through state property law first. Owners avoid the preclusion risk that made the old system a one-way ticket to state court. They also avoid litigating the same dispute twice in two court systems.
One wrinkle: suing a municipality under § 1983 requires showing the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, ordinance, or established custom. Under the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, a local government can’t be held liable simply because one of its employees acted unconstitutionally on the job. Knick’s cemetery ordinance was an official township policy, so this element was met. In cases involving ad hoc decisions by an individual official, the path to municipal liability is harder.
What the Ruling Did Not Change
Knick changed the procedural path, not the substantive standard for what counts as a taking. Physical occupations, permanent or authorized by ordinance, remain the most straightforward category. Regulatory takings, where a rule restricts use without physical occupation, still require proving either that the regulation eliminated all economically viable use or that it fails the balancing test weighing economic impact, interference with investment expectations, and the character of the government action.6Congressional Research Service. The Takings Clause of the Constitution – Overview of Supreme Court Interpretations
Winning a takings claim also doesn’t usually stop the government from doing what it’s doing. The Takings Clause secures compensation, not a veto. If the government is authorized by law to take property for a legitimate public use and monetary compensation is available, courts generally won’t enjoin the project. You get paid; the road or pipeline or easement goes forward. Injunctions are more likely where the taking lacks legal authorization or public purpose, but the typical remedy is fair market value.4Constitution Annotated. Amdt5.10.1 Overview of Takings Clause
Why the Decision Matters
Before this ruling, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against uncompensated takings was the only provision in the Bill of Rights that required a state-court detour before federal review. Free speech, due process, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment claims all went straight to federal court. Property rights stood alone in an exhaustion regime that, after San Remo, usually became a dead end. Knick closed that gap.
Local governments are the entities most likely to take or restrict private property, through zoning, building codes, environmental rules, and eminent domain. Those governments litigate on familiar ground in their own state courts. Federal court gives property owners an alternative forum where federal constitutional standards apply directly and local political dynamics carry less weight. For an owner facing an aggressive land-use restriction, that forum choice can shape the whole trajectory of the case.