In a 5-4 opinion issued late last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "[a] property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.” Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ____, No. 17-647, 2019 WL 2552486, *3 (June 21, 2019) (slip op.). “That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities.” Id. “But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under § 1983 at that time.” Id. Per Knick, "[i]f a local government takes private property without paying for it, that government has violated the Fifth Amendment—just as the Takings Clause says—without regard to subsequent state court proceedings.” Id. at *5. “And the property owner may sue the government at that time in federal court for the ‘deprivation’ of a right ‘secured by the Constitution.’” Id. (quoting 42 U. S. C. § 1983).
Prior to last week's ruling in Knick, in Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186-97 (1985), the Supreme Court held that a property owner whose property had been taken by a local government had not suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights—and thus could not bring a federal takings claim in federal court—until a state court had denied the property owner's claim for just compensation under state law. See also Bateman v. City of West Bountiful, 89 F.3d 704, 706-09 (10th Cir. 1996); Alto Eldorado P’ship v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 634 F.3d 1170, 1174 (10th Cir. 2011) (because plaintiffs did not, before bringing suit under the Takings Clause, seek compensation through an inverse condemnation action under applicable state statute, plaintiffs' claim was not ripe). In Knick, the Supreme Court overruled Williamson County, ruling that "a property owner has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause as soon as a government takes his property for public use without paying for it." Knick, 2019 WL 2552486 at *5. The majority found that "Takings claims against local governments should be handled the same as other claims under the Bill of Rights" and that "Williamson County erred in holding otherwise." Knick, 2019 WL 2552486 at *11.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Knick is that plaintiffs are no longer required to exhaust any available state court remedies before filing suit for an alleged violation of the Takings Clause. Of course, this also means that any such claim filed in state court--presumable, under Section 1983 as contemplated in Knick--should be instantly removeable to federal court.