Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case -- A Sign Of Things To Come?

[bitterross]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: NPR

A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.

Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.

Read more: https://n.pr/2L7VFdk

---

This is a really, really bad ruling.

If I were the lawyers for people like The Liberty Council or The Heritage Foundation I'd be filing briefs citing this ruling so I could take my bakers' and florists' cases right to the federal courts. This ruling will lead to that next. Just take this sentence from the ruling:

"We now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs"

and replace the "takings" with the term for the plaintiff who is a baker or florist in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and they can rule the burden is unjustifiable for the small business owner. There's no end to how that sentence can be used.

Now that they've packed the federal courts with white, men who are homophobic and think women belong in the kitchen this is really bad. People are going to go straight there to seek the rulings from these men.

For people who are supposed to be for States Rights, they just struck a huge blow against them.

[Kurt V.]

1. Its an attack on precedent as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/kagan-supreme-court-precedent-warning/index.html

[Igel]

3. Obergefell was just as much an attack on precedent.

I heard no wailing, only celebration, over that violation of what's become the sacred principle of stare decisis.

Not every overturning of precedent is evil; not every overturning of precedent is virtuous. Take it on a case-by-case basis, otherwise you're stuck in the position of those who now say overturning precedent is a bad thing and who must say, "It was wrong for the SCOTUS to decide Obergefell as they did, declaring prohibition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional; no, precedent said that states could ban same-sex marriages, and that's the side that progressives who defend stare decisis as inviolate must take."

And, yes, when SCOTUS overturned precedent in that case, there was much wailing from (R) specifically over the fact that, once again, SCOTUS had not upheld precedent and the sky was falling.

[Kurt V.]

4. i agree that it should be case by case. i also think that's not what this is about at all.

Its about the federalist society's dream of controlling the other 2 branches.

[bitterross]

11. Obergefell overturned a very weak precedent in Baker

The court simply dismissed the appeal. There was no Writ of Certiorari to the court. It heard no arguments and made no new because it issued no ruling. The precedent was more of a default than a hard line ruling by the Court.

There are some cases in which the ruling is simply wrong. Particularly those based on ignorance, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. Cases such as Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson were simply wrong because they treated humans as unequal beings based on skin color.

Over time, society came to terms with the fact this was immoral and wrong. Cases such as Brown, Loving v. VA and others corrected the wrongs of previous decisions based on racism and ignorance. The same can be said of Obergefell. Society came to the realization that discrimination against people for an attribute that was part of their genetic makeup was simply wrong. The Court's ruling in Obergefell supports that notion.

In this case, the plaintiff didn't present any new and novel arguments. It reversed a decision on the same question it had previously ruled upon.

[procon]

2. Overturning precedents has far greater reprocations.

Look at Rowe v Wade, maybe this ruling has laid the path to making abortions illegal again. How many other the big precedent can this court overturn that would reshape our society and change ok cultural norms?

[Ligyron]

5. Setting a precedent to overturn precedents.

Yup, laying the groundwork here, watch out.

[Jake Stern]

6. If tis decision lays a path to making abortions illegal then:

So did Brown v Board of Education which overturned Plessy v Ferguson.

So did Lawrence v Texas which overturned Bowers v Hardwick.

So did Loving v Virginia which overturned Pace v Alabama.

So did Obergefell v Hodges which overturned Baker v Nelson.

I wholeheartedly support this decision because Williamson placed unreasonable burden on property owners to fight against takings (and yes, forcing them to open their land is a form of "taking" ) by instituting a catch 22: if they lose in state court there are federal court rules which bar the case from being re litigated in federal court.

Or even more egregious is the defendant having the case "removed" to federal court and then getting it dismissed because the plaintiff had not exhausted state appeals.

If the family wants open access to the graves then they or the Township can pay to have to graves relocated to an official cemetery instead of badgering and making demands of an elderly woman living by herself.

[bitterross]

13. I completely disagree with you.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion that Williamson placed an unreasonable burden on property owners. The Court didn't think so in the prior 100-plus years of precedents upon which Williamson was based. See Kagan's dissent beginning on page 15 of the opinion.

By what objective standard can you say a state's laws and regulations impose an unreasonable burden? Where is the line? I do not believe you can establish an objective measure. The laws and regulatory framework of the states, counties and other municipalities vary so much it is quite impossible to draw a thick, red line.

State law issues should be decided by the states first. Then, if there is still a case for a federal trial that should take place. This is the way the Founders set up the system. They were wary of a too-strong central government. The GOP sees that the states are more liberal and opinion in the states goes against their view on the way other people should live their lives. This is just another way for them to continue to keep control without having the support of the majority of the people. This is another step on the way to throw issues to the federal courts and stamp out such niceties as state-passed minimum wages and benefits.


This is a bad decision.

[Everyman Jackal]

8. I do not think that The Supreme Court

will rule that abortions are illegal. What I do think they will rule is that it is a states' rights issue. Unfortunate for the women that live in the red states.

[jmowreader]

9. Hold on for a second

This court also upheld separate sovereigns.

In essence, trying to predict what the Kavanaugh-Gorsuch court is going to do next is like trying to predict whether Trump is going to do any of the crazy shit he’s threatened to do,

[X_Digger]

7. No, this is a really good ruling overturning bad precedent. n/t

[bitterross]

10. Please explain your opinion.

I fail to see how throwing out 180 years of precedent on a question that didn't present new and novel arguments is a good thing.

[X_Digger]

12. Property owners were left in legal limbo before.

If they lost in a state court, certain federal rules prohibited re-hearing the issue.

Or as a poster puts it above, it was a catch-22. It was a near certain win for states, and property owners had no recourse.

[bitterross]

14. Both of you are short-sighted

You are only looking at the specific case at hand. You are not looking at the broader logic of the decision. A logic that can be used to try to bring other cases to the federal courts to overrule the states.

ON EDIT: Nothing about the issues raised in this case has changed in the last 100 years. NOTHING. The only thing that has changed is the members of the court. THAT is not a reason precedent should be overturned.

[Jake Stern]

16. I look at the case at hand because that's what the procedural decision concerned.

Funny how Dems are all about stare decis all of a sudden. Not too long ago when we were trying to get our causes through the courts everybody here was down with precedent busting and the right was touting the virtues of stare decis but now we want strict observation of precedent even if it means forcing an elderly woman to allow strangers to trample all over her land.

[bitterross]

17. So you're a Republican Land Developer?

Asking for a friend.

[X_Digger]

18. What harm does being able to appeal a state decision foist on you?

Are you a city employee eyeing some property for a community center? Asking for a friend.

[bitterross]

15. The ONLY thing that changed w/ this case in the last 100 years was the Court Members

If you read Kagan's dissent you will realize that the only thing about this case that changed, was the members on the court.

It goes against the whole principle of stare decisis for that to be the reason the precedent was overturned. There is supposed to be consistency in the law so the people know what the law is and are not subject to a continuously changing set of decisions.

It is bad for the legal system when SCOTUS starts overturning precedent for no reason. What confidence can people have in the system at that point?

[KPN]

19. Oh good, now we can have porn shoips on every corner.

[JudyM]

20. Locking.

This post was alerted on as being a dupe of an earlier thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142331642

LBN rules:
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.