Supreme Court Deals Another Blow to Local Government Thieves

The Supreme Court already ruled this year in  Timbs v. Indiana that localities which confiscate large amounts of property to enforce petty crimes are violating the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  On June 21st, the Supreme Court announced a ruling that may further limit local governments' ability to take property.  The ruling in the case, Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania , allows victims of eminent domain to bypass state courts and go directly to federal courts when they feel they have not been quickly and justly compensated. 

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, has a very interesting passage.  It goes, "...The Fifth Amendment right to full compensation arises at the time of the taking, regardless of post-taking remedies that may be available to the property owner..."  For those not familiar with such procedures, in many parts of the country property is taken without either no or inadequate compensation.  Then local government uses a long, expensive court process for the property owner to sue for compensation.  Many property owners give up because attorney's fees, filing fees, time and effort to receive compensation may exceed the property's value.

Justice Thomas wrote something even more interesting in a concurrent opinion, 

----This “sue me” approach to the Takings Clause is untenable. The Fifth Amendment does not merely provide a damages remedy to a property owner willing to “shoulder the burden of securing compensation” after the government takes property without paying for it... ----

Although not actually saying it, Justice Thomas hints at the absurdity of a person having to file suit to get paid in a court where the judge knows some of their compensation comes from the seized property.

The combination of the Timbs and the Knick cases seem to indicate that the Supreme Court is moving in the right direction with regards to the relationship of government vs. private property rights.  Although these recent decisions don't completely undo the damage from the Kelo ET AL. v. City of New London ET AL case, it gives hope that the Justices may be considering the overreach that local governments have exercised in the realm of unjust property confiscation.