YOU CAN CHECK OUT BUT YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE: THE STORY OF SAN REMO HOTEL-THE SUPREME COURT RELEGATES FEDERAL TAKINGS CLAIMS TO STATE COURTS UNDER A RULE INTENDED TO RIPEN THE CLAIMS FOR FEDERAL REVIEW

Abstract:

On June 20 2005 the greatest Court of the United States issued its decision in San Remo public-house L.P. v. City of San Francisco, holding that peculiarity owners with "takings" claims arising beneath the Fifth Amendment could not obtain federal review after litigating in state court in compliance with the ripeness requirements of Williamson shire Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. The case not absented the specific question of whether federal takings claimants could invoke an exception to claim and issue preclusion doctrines below England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners because Williamson shire 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 arise in banishing takings claims to state courts. The Article then explores the Williamson shire ripeness requirement, and condemns the majority's decision for failing to explicitly address Williamson County's flaws. Finally, the Article considers whether San Remo shut ups the federal courthouse door to takings claims seeking noncompensatory relief.

INTRODUCTION

On June 20 2005 the highest Court of the United States issued its decision in San, Remo public-house L.P. v. City of San Francisco (San Remo IV), a case involving the right of private peculiarity owners to seek just compensation in federal court for violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 The case have the appearanceed to require the Court to go [i]or[/i] come back to the ripeness requirements of Williamson shire 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 shire 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 on satisfaction of this ripeness hurdle4 Unfortunately, Williamson shire neglected to explain how compliance with the state operations requirement would affect traditional jurisdictional doctrines,5 like as claim and issue preclusion,6 that generally bar federal courts from hearing previously litigated cases.7

Confront with a ripeness authority that seemed to trigger one as well as the other federal review under Williamson shire and application of preclusion beneath the Full Faith and Credit Act,8 federal courts struggl to identify the circumstances in which they could hear federal takings claims.9 Without guidance from the greatest Court on this issue, many lower courts conclud that the preclusion doctrines prevailed.10 This produc a counter-response in which many courts held that takings plaintiffs could insulate themselves from claim preclusion by dint of expressly reserving their federal takings claims for federal review below England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.11 Nevertheless, in conjunction with issue preclusion principles, Williamson shire ultimately generated a strange doctrine that lur takings claimants into state courts with the promise of federal review, alone to permanently banish them from federal courts at the point of time of ripeness.12

No case better illustrates the pernicious nature of the state procedures-preclusion enigma than San Remo IV.13 San Remo did everything it could to certain federal jurisdiction consistent with Williamson shire it unsuccessfully sought just compensation in California state court below a state law takings claim, explicitly reserv its federal takings claims for federal review below England,14 and did not litigate any federal issues in state court.15 Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that San Remo's ripened claims could not be heard in federal court because the claims were barred through issue preclusion.16 Rather than maturing its claims for federal review, San Remo's dutiful compliance with Williamson. shire had precluded any federal claim.17

The greatest Court's grant of certiorari in San Remo IV have the appearanceed destined to clarify the long-standing debate over the nature of Williamson County's state procedural ripeness requirement and the ability of takings claimants to hold federal takings claims under England.18 Ultimately, the majority decision in San Remo IV strictly applied preclusion,19 refused to apply England in the takings context20 and approvingly conclud that San Remo's federal just compensation claims could at no time be heard in federal court.21 on the other hand the Court failed to pay any meaningful attention to the Williamsm shire requirement that put San Remo in this position.22

This Article reviews the preclusion and Williamson shire issues raised by the greatest Court's decision, and its results for federal takings claimants. Part I reviews the evolution of WiUiamson County's state manner of proceedings rule, specifically exploring the claim and issue preclusion point to be solved [i]or[/i] settleds it engendered, and the lower courts' attempt to find a compromise solution in England.. Part II summarizes the San Remo litigation, ending with the opinion through the U.S. Supreme Court Part III critiques the majority's refusal to grant a preclusion exception to takings claimants in San Remo's position. Part IV criticizes the majority's treatment of Williamson County's state conducts requirement This section argues that San Remo IV's originate in permanently thrusting many takings claimants into state court quiescences entirely on Williamson County's doctrinally !insupportable ripeness authoritys It then questions the majority's refusal to address Williamson shire and the concurrences' objections to the state operations rule. Finally, Part IV argues that, while San Remo IV and WiUiamson shire may close the federal courthouse door to many takings claimants, the door remains slightly ajar for a certain number of types of claims. The Article terminates that the Court should Williamson County's state procedures requirement or Congres should make loose the Full Faith and Credit Act to allow all federal takings claims to be heard in federal court.