The Horne takings case in the 2012-2013 term, though surely destined for obscurity, can usefully serve as the springboard for the development of a more coherent and predictable division of labor in takings cases within the federal court system and between the federal courts and the state courts. The distribution of takings cases between different federal courts will rest on a more secure doctrinal foundation, and litigants will have clearer guidance on how to proceed if the Court acknowledges that the reason a takings claimant generally cannot seek equitable relief under the Takings Clause in federal district court is that such a claim fails to state a valid legal claim if there is an opportunity to seek compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. At the same time, it would make takings doctrine more coherent, and undo the damage done in Home, if the Court recognized that the doctrinal underpinnings for the rule governing the distribution of takings cases among federal courts are different from the underpinnings for the rule channeling most takings claims against local governments into state courts. The just-compensation prong of Williamson County ripeness doctrine, properly reconceived, has nothing to do with ripeness at all and everything to do with federalism. In the meantime, the Hornes are not likely to prevail in their case on remand, thereby preserving the string of unbroken government victories in takings challenges to what Justice Elena Kagan correctly described as one of "the world's most outdated laws."
展开▼
