Abstract:

On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City of San Francisco, holding that property owners with "takings" claims arising under the Fifth Amendment could not obtain federal review after litigating in state court in compliance with the ripeness requirements of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. The case presented the specific question of whether federal takings claimants could invoke an exception to claim and issue preclusion doctrines under England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners because Williamson County forced them to involuntarily litigate in state court. This Article reviews the San Remo decision, criticizing the majority's narrow interpretation of England and the result in banishing takings claims to state courts. The Article then explores the Williamson County ripeness requirement, and condemns the majority's decision for failing to explicitly address Williamson County's flaws. Finally, the Article considers whether San Remo closes the federal courthouse door to takings claims seeking noncompensatory relief.

INTRODUCTION

On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in San, Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City of San Francisco (San Remo IV), a case involving the right of private property owners to seek just compensation in federal court for violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 The case seemed to require the Court to return to the ripeness requirements of Williamson County Regional Planning Cammission v. Hamilton Bank to determine whether they interacted with issue preclusion to strip federal takings claimants of a federal forum for their complaint.2 In Williamson County, the Court held that federal takings claims were unripe until the claimant unsuccessfully sought compensation in state court,3 indicating that federal review was available upon satisfaction of this ripeness hurdle.4 Unfortunately, Williamson County neglected to explain how compliance with the state procedures requirement would affect traditional jurisdictional doctrines,5 such as claim and issue preclusion,6 that generally bar federal courts from hearing previously litigated cases.7