In Knick v. Township of Scott, decided June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that a property owner suffers a Fifth Amendment violation the moment the government takes their property without paying just compensation, and can file a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 right away.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania The decision overruled a 34-year-old precedent that had forced owners to sue in state court first, a detour that in practice closed the federal courthouse door entirely.
The Farm and the Cemetery Ordinance
Rose Mary Knick owned a ninety-acre farm in Scott Township, Pennsylvania. Small stone markers on the land suggested the possible presence of an old family burial ground. In 2012, the township passed an ordinance requiring that all cemeteries within its borders, whether on public or private land, stay open and accessible to the public during daylight hours. The ordinance also authorized township officers to enter any property to determine whether a cemetery existed there.2Justia. Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 US ___ (2019)
After a code enforcement officer visited Knick’s property without her permission, the township issued a notice of violation demanding public access across her private fields. Knick sued, arguing the ordinance imposed an unauthorized public easement without compensation. That is when she ran headfirst into the doctrine the case would ultimately dismantle.
The Williamson County Trap
For 34 years, the controlling precedent for takings claims was Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985). It imposed two requirements before a takings claim could reach federal court. First, the owner had to secure a final decision from the government about how the regulation applied to their land. Second, and more damaging, the owner had to seek compensation through whatever procedures the state court system offered.3Justia. Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172 (1985)
The reasoning sounded plausible. The Fifth Amendment forbids taking property without just compensation, not the taking itself; if a state provides a way to get paid, no violation has occurred until that process fails. But the second requirement created a trap. Once an owner litigated in state court and lost, ordinary claim preclusion rules barred them from raising the same issue in federal court. The Supreme Court confirmed that trap in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, holding that state court takings judgments carry full preclusive effect in later federal litigation.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Takings claims became the only category of constitutional rights with no meaningful federal forum. Go to state court and lose, and federal court was closed by preclusion. Skip state court, and federal court was closed for lack of ripeness. The majority in Knick would call this “unworkable.”
What the Majority Held
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a five-justice majority joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. The holding is direct: a property owner has a viable Fifth Amendment claim as soon as the government takes property without paying for it, and can bring that claim in federal court under § 1983 immediately.2Justia. Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 US ___ (2019)
Roberts grounded the ruling in the text of the Takings Clause itself. The Constitution conditions government takings on “just compensation,” not on “an available procedure that will result in compensation.” The right to be paid arises at the moment of the taking. Citing Jacobs v. United States (1933), Roberts noted that a property owner with a valid takings claim is entitled to compensation as if it had been paid at the time of the taking, including interest from that date.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
The majority also confronted what it saw as an embarrassing inconsistency. For every other right in the Bill of Rights, a person can file a § 1983 lawsuit in federal court without first suing in state court. Free speech, due process, equal protection — no state-court exhaustion required. The Williamson County rule singled out takings claims for uniquely inferior treatment. Roberts wrote that overruling it was necessary to restore the Takings Clause to the “full-fledged constitutional status the Framers envisioned.”2Justia. Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 US ___ (2019)
One clarification in the opinion is worth pausing on. The decision does not require the government to pay before it takes. Governments can still take first and compensate later without having their actions enjoined, so long as compensation is available. What changed is when the constitutional violation occurs and where the owner can seek a remedy.
The Dissent
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, dissented sharply. Her central objection was that the majority misread the Fifth Amendment. In Kagan’s view, a takings violation has two elements: the government must take the property, and it must deny just compensation. Until both have occurred, there is no constitutional violation. If a state offers a reliable process for obtaining payment, a property owner who has not tried it has not been denied anything.1Supreme Court of the United States. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Kagan also raised practical concerns. Takings disputes almost always turn on questions of state property law: what rights the owner had, what the regulation did to those rights, how local zoning operates. She argued federal judges are not well positioned to resolve those questions and that the ruling would send a wave of local land-use disputes into federal court. She warned that under the new rule, government employees engaged in routine regulatory work would “almost inescapably become constitutional malefactors” the moment a regulation applied without simultaneous payment.
What Knick Did Not Change
The decision does not let a property owner race to federal court the moment a local government proposes something they dislike. Knick overruled only the state-litigation prong of Williamson County. The finality requirement survived and remains a prerequisite for any federal takings claim.
Finality means the government must have reached a conclusive decision about how its regulation applies to the specific property. If administrative avenues remain for the government to clarify or change its position, the claim is not yet ripe. The Court clarified the standard two years later in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, describing finality as a modest threshold: the plaintiff needs to show there is “no question about how the regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.” Exhausting every administrative appeal is not required. Once the government has adopted its final position, the dispute is ripe.4Justia. Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 594 US ___ (2021)
So an owner whose zoning variance is still pending, or who has not yet received a final denial from a planning commission, likely cannot file in federal court yet. The government has to have made up its mind. But once it has, the owner no longer needs to file a state lawsuit and lose before crossing the federal courthouse threshold.
How Property Owners Now Bring a Federal Takings Claim
The vehicle is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue government officials who violate their constitutional rights while acting under government authority.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 US Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights Before Knick, the statute was theoretically available for takings claims but practically useless because of the Williamson County roadblock. It now works for property owners the same way it works for anyone else asserting a constitutional right.
Available relief includes compensatory damages covering the fair market value of the property interest taken, plus interest from the date of the taking; declaratory relief establishing that the government action was unconstitutional; and injunctive relief to stop an ongoing violation. Prevailing plaintiffs may also recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which matters in practice because takings litigation is expensive and fee-shifting gives owners meaningful leverage.
The § 1983 path applies to both physical takings, where the government occupies or appropriates property, and regulatory takings, where restrictions eliminate all economically beneficial use of land.6Library of Congress. Overview of Takings Clause One procedural detail worth flagging: the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim borrows from the state where the property is located, usually that state’s personal injury limitations period. The clock starts running when the taking occurs, which after Knick means the moment the government acts without compensation. Wait too long and the claim is gone, regardless of how clear the violation was.
How Cedar Point Nursery Expanded the Reach
Two years after Knick, the Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021), which expanded what counts as a physical taking. At issue was a California regulation granting union organizers the right to enter agricultural property for up to three hours a day, 120 days a year, to speak with workers. The Court held 6–3 that this government-authorized access was a per se physical taking requiring just compensation, even though it was temporary and did not diminish the property’s market value.7Supreme Court of the United States. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Before Cedar Point, courts generally treated only permanent physical occupations and regulations that wiped out all economic value as per se takings. After Cedar Point, even limited, temporary government-authorized entries onto private property can qualify. The connection to Knick’s facts is direct: Scott Township’s ordinance authorized officers and members of the public to enter the farm. Under the Cedar Point framework, that kind of access regulation looks even more clearly like a taking than it did when Knick was decided.
Read together, the two cases mark a meaningful expansion of property rights under the Takings Clause. Knick opened the federal courthouse door. Cedar Point widened the set of government actions that can walk through it. For a property owner who believes a local regulation has taken something without payment, the practical result is the same access to federal court that every other person asserting a constitutional right has always had.