Knick v. Township of Scott
Must a property owner first seek compensation through state court procedures before bringing a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court, as required by the Supreme Court's prior decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City?
The Decision
5-4 decision · Opinion by John G. Roberts Jr. · 2019
Majority Opinion— John G. Roberts Jr.concurring ↓dissent ↓
In a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rose Mary Knick and overruled the state-litigation requirement established in Williamson County. The Court held that a property owner whose property has been taken by the government without compensation may bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim directly in federal court under § 1983 without first seeking compensation through state procedures.
The majority's core reasoning centered on when a constitutional violation actually occurs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated at the moment the government takes private property without paying for it — not at some later point when state courts decline to award compensation. Under the text of the Fifth Amendment, the right to compensation arises at the time of the taking. Therefore, the property owner has suffered a complete constitutional injury from the outset and should not be forced to pursue state remedies first.
The majority acknowledged that its holding represented a significant departure from Williamson County but explained that the prior decision rested on a flawed interpretation of the Takings Clause. Williamson County had reasoned that because states could satisfy the compensation requirement through post-taking procedures, no constitutional violation existed until those procedures failed. Roberts rejected this logic, explaining that it confused the government's obligation to pay with the property owner's right to be paid. The existence of a potential state remedy does not erase the constitutional violation that has already occurred.
The Court further emphasized the deeply unfair practical consequences of the Williamson County rule. Because of the federal full faith and credit statute, a property owner who litigated a takings claim in state court — as Williamson County required — would be barred from raising the same claim in federal court afterward. The state-litigation requirement thus operated as a 'nearly insurmountable' barrier that effectively shut the door of every federal courthouse to takings claimants. The majority found this result intolerable, noting that it turned the Takings Clause into a 'poor relation' among Bill of Rights provisions. Every other constitutional right can be vindicated in federal court, and the Fifth Amendment's property protections deserve no less.
The Court was careful to note that its decision did not affect the other requirement from Williamson County — that a takings claim requires a final decision from the relevant government entity. Nor did the ruling address the merits of Knick's underlying claim that the cemetery ordinance constituted a taking. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion in full and also wrote a brief concurrence emphasizing that the factors the Court considers when deciding whether to overrule a prior decision — including the quality of the original reasoning and the practical consequences of adhering to it — strongly supported abandoning Williamson County's state-litigation requirement.
Dissenting Opinions
Elena Kaganjoined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Kagan argued that the majority was wrong to overrule Williamson County and that its decision disregarded the principle of stare decisis without adequate justification. She contended that the Takings Clause is fundamentally different from other constitutional provisions because it does not prohibit government action but merely requires that compensation accompany it — meaning a government that provides a reliable mechanism for compensation has not violated the Constitution.
- The Takings Clause is unique in the Bill of Rights because it presupposes that the government may take private property; it only demands that fair compensation be paid. A state that offers adequate post-taking compensation procedures satisfies this obligation, and no constitutional violation occurs unless those procedures fail.
- Williamson County had stood for over 30 years, and Congress, lower courts, and state governments had relied on and built legal frameworks around it. Overruling such an established precedent requires a special justification beyond mere disagreement, and the majority failed to provide one.
- The majority's decision would federalize a vast number of land-use and regulatory disputes that had traditionally been handled by state courts, fundamentally altering the relationship between federal and state judicial systems in matters of local property regulation.
- The Catch-22 problem — that state litigation would preclude a later federal claim — had already been addressed by the Court's 2005 decision in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, which Congress could have changed legislatively if it wished, and its existence did not justify the drastic step of overruling settled precedent.
Background & Facts
Rose Mary Knick owned approximately 90 acres of rural land in Scott Township, a small community in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. In 2012, the Township enacted an ordinance requiring that all cemeteries on private property be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours. A Township code enforcement officer entered Knick's property, identified what he believed to be a small, old cemetery with several grave markers, and issued Knick a notice of violation for failing to open her land to the public. Knick disputed that the stones were actually grave markers and objected to being forced to allow strangers onto her private property.
Knick initially sought relief in state court, where she obtained a temporary order halting enforcement of the ordinance. The Township then withdrew its violation notice and paused enforcement, but the ordinance itself remained on the books and could be enforced against her at any time. Knick then turned to federal court, filing a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal civil rights statute — arguing that the ordinance amounted to a 'taking' of her property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Knick's claim. The court relied on a 1985 Supreme Court precedent called Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which held that a takings claim is not 'ripe' — that is, not ready for federal court — until the property owner has first sought compensation through whatever procedures the state provides. Since Knick had not filed a takings claim in Pennsylvania state court, the federal courts said her case was premature.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the same grounds. Knick then petitioned the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case, recognizing an opportunity to reconsider the much-criticized Williamson County rule, which many scholars, judges, and property rights advocates had long argued created an unfair procedural trap for property owners seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights in federal court.
The Arguments
Knick argued that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause is violated the moment the government takes private property without paying for it. She should not be forced to beg for compensation in state court before she can assert her federal constitutional rights in federal court.
- The Williamson County state-litigation requirement created an impossible Catch-22: once a property owner litigated a takings claim in state court, federal law (the full faith and credit statute) would prevent her from relitigating the same issue in federal court, effectively barring all federal takings claims.
- The Takings Clause is the only provision of the Bill of Rights whose protections cannot be directly enforced in federal court under § 1983, which is an unjustifiable double standard.
- A property owner's constitutional right to just compensation arises at the time of the taking, not at some later point after state procedures have been exhausted.
The Township argued that Williamson County was correctly decided and that property owners suffer no constitutional violation as long as the state provides a reasonable procedure for seeking compensation. The availability of a state remedy means no Fifth Amendment claim has yet ripened.
- The Takings Clause is unique among constitutional provisions because it does not prohibit government action — it merely requires that compensation be provided, and a state can satisfy this requirement through post-taking compensation procedures.
- Williamson County had been settled law for over three decades, and principles of stare decisis counseled against overturning it.
- Overruling Williamson County would open the floodgates to federal takings litigation, undermining the role of state courts in resolving land-use disputes and burdening federal courts with matters traditionally handled at the state level.
Cited In
Pung v. Isabella County
2025 Term · 25-95
Established that property owners may bring Takings Clause claims directly in federal court without first exhausting state court remedies, clearing the procedural path for suits like this one.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin
2025 Term · 24-781
Petitioner argued that requiring state court litigation before federal review creates the same 'preclusion trap' this case rejected — where plaintiffs lose federal forum access because state court preclusion bars later federal claims.
GEO Group v. Menocal
2025 Term · 24-758
GEO cited a footnote stating Yearsley was 'correct to recognize an immunity from suit.' Respondents countered that the next sentence says the Tucker Act provides a complete remedy excluding liability, showing 'immunity' was used loosely.