Will the Supreme Court Revisit the Williamson County Ripeness Requirement?
The Supreme Court's decision in Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) adopted a two prong ripeness test which has become an enormous barrier to litigating property rights claims in federal courts.
Property owners are not only required to complete state administrative requirements before filing suit, but also first seek "state compensation" in the form of a state court lawsuit. In San Remo v. City and County of San Francisco(2005) 125 S. Ct. 2491, the Supreme Court majority specifically avoided directly addressing the Williamson County decision, instead focusing on the preclusive effect of prior state court litigation. However, four Justices expressed concerns about the impact of Williamson County. The dissent of Justice Rehnquist observed “[i]t is not clear to me that Williamson County was correct in demanding that, once a government entity has reached a final decision with respect to a claimant's property, the claimant must seek compensation in state court before bringing a federal takings claim in federal court.”
Will the Supreme Court revisit Williamson County and, if so, to what result?
The Supreme Court Will Modify the "State Compensation" Prong of Williamson County.
The "ripeness" premise of Williamson County is that there is not a certain federal dispute over the right of compensation if the regulating state has yet to refuse compensation, as the Fifth Amendment protects against "taking without compensation." While the Supreme Court will maintain this requirement, it will hold that a property owner is not required to complete a state court inverse condemnation lawsuit if it can otherwise establish that compensation has been sought and refused by the state, or the refusal can be fairly implied. See Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 353 F. 3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2003) The Supreme Court will further clarify that the "state compensation" prong of Williamson County is prudential, i.e. not jurisdictional, so that federal courts will have power to hear the case on the appropriate showing even if state compensation has not been sought and refused.