Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania: Not the Revolution Some Hope for and Others Fear

Abstract

In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), the Supreme Court overruled Williamson County v. Town of Hamilton, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) to hold that plaintiffs may file inverse condemnation claims in federal court without first exhausting their claims in state court. Advocates of takings expansion rejoiced that the decision “reopens the federal courthouse door to property owners.” Skeptics takings expansion, meanwhile, worried that the decision transformed “federal courts into the new zoning appeals board for every municipality in the country.” I argue that both camps are wrong. Most inverse condemnation claims will still be filed or decided in state courts, both because many such cases will turn on state law issues appropriate for abstention, and because state courts will often be more receptive to inverse condemnation claims. This short article first lays out the Williamson and Knick decisions, and then discusses why the impact of Knick may not be as great as both critics and celebrants assume.

Keywords: Knick, Takings, Eminent Domain, Abstention

JEL Classification: KF10