Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a citizen whose federal rights have been violated has a federal cause of action. Federal courts have jurisdiction over Section 1983 cases under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 (general federal question) and 1343 (conferring federal jurisdiction over certain civil rights cases).
The right to not have one's property taken absent a "public use," and to be paid "just compensation" are protected under the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause, which has been incorporated against the states. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897) ("[C]ompensation for private property taken for public uses constitutes an essential element in 'due process of law[].'") Thus, a landowner whose property is taken should be able to sue in federal court, right?
Wrong. If you thought courts strained the law in criminal cases, well, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), the Court held that a Section 1983 action arising under violations of the Takings Clause could not litigated in federal court until it had been litigated in state court. (!) In short, a case wasn't ripe until just compensation had been denied. Whether this was a bad principle, since it imposed a de facto exhaustion requirement on landowners, is an issue for for another day. Anyhow, landowners took Williamson County in stride.
Landowners said, "Fine. We'll litigate some issues in state court, but save the Section 1983 issues for federal court. We want our federal forum, so we'll play your unfair game if that's what it takes to get there." Yesterday the Supreme Court answered, "You can't do this, either."
In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 04-340 (U.S. Jun. 20, 2005), the Supreme Court held that issue preclusion prevents one from bringing a Section 1983 action after he has brought a state court action alleging his property had been taken, or that just compensation had not been paid. In other words, you can't file a takings case in federal court until you file in state court. But since you litigated your case in state could, you can't file it in federal court. If you are confused, then you are comprehending San Remo, and land use litigation in general.
But let's try to figure this out. Here's a summary of the law:
1. You have a federal forum for constitutional rights violations.
2. Taking property absent a public use, or denying just compensation, is unconstitutional.
3. You don't have a federal forum for Takings Clause violations until you have sued in state court.
4. If you sued in state court, you don't have a federal forum.
Dr. Werner Heisenberg once said:
The most difficult problem concerning the use of the language arises in quantum theory. Here we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms.
The same could be said of the Supreme Court's takings litigation jurisprudence.
