In a legal landscape where the judicially enforceable constitutional right to just compensation contends with a state’s assertion of sovereign immunity, the question of which doctrine ultimately prevails remains unresolved. Two pivotal state property seizure cases aim to bring clarity, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to determine whether to hear these cases during its upcoming “long conference” in late September.
Historically, the Supreme Court has hinted that just compensation should serve as a self-executing remedy to any governmental taking, but this has never been definitively ruled. For instance, in last term’s decision in DeVillier v. Texas, the high court acknowledged this tension but left it unresolved. The U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay just compensation when private property is taken for public use, whether through eminent domain, confiscation of personal property, or over-restriction of an owner’s reasonable use.
This requirement aims to ensure that property owners are not unjustly burdened economically, a principle recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. While federal and local governments are obliged to comply, state governments often evade this responsibility owing to sovereign immunity, a Constitutional holdover allowing states to claim immunity unless explicitly waived.
Two recent cases, O’Connor v. Eubanks and Gerlach v. Rokita, underscore the modern dilemma. Both involve state laws on unclaimed property, where accrued interest is retained by the state, depriving property owners of their due compensation. The lower courts upheld the states’ claims to sovereign immunity, effectively denying the petitioners their constitutional right to just compensation.
Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to pay just compensation for takings. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that any taking includes an implied promise to compensate, suggesting that sovereign immunity should not overturn a just compensation claim. This understanding places the power to remedy these injustices squarely with the high court, which must now decide whether to act.
The cases awaiting the court’s decision are reflective of broader national concerns. Property owners nationwide are urging the Supreme Court to reconcile these conflicting doctrines, seeking relief from state practices that sidestep just compensation through sovereign immunity claims. As cases like O’Connor v. Eubanks and Gerlach v. Rokita make their way to the Supreme Court, the potential for a landmark ruling grows ever closer, aiming to address and resolve this critical intersection of constitutional rights and state immunities. For more detailed information, please visit the original article.