937 F.3d 454
5th Cir.2019Background
- Property owner sued Mississippi state officials after a state-court jury found the officials exceeded the scope of a state easement, violating the Takings Clause, but awarded less than the owner sought in just compensation.
- Owner exhausted state appeals and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, then filed suit in federal court seeking additional relief.
- State moved to dismiss the federal suit based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; the district court granted the motion in a detailed opinion.
- On appeal, owner argued that Knick v. Township of Scott changed sovereign-immunity principles for Takings Clause suits against states.
- The panel considered whether Knick undermined state sovereign immunity or created an independent federal-court takings remedy against states without waiver or abrogation.
- The court concluded neither congressional abrogation nor state waiver of immunity existed here and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a takings claim against a State can proceed in federal court despite Eleventh Amendment immunity | Knick means property owners may sue states in federal court immediately for Takings Clause violations | States retain Eleventh Amendment immunity; Knick addressed localities and did not overrule sovereign immunity precedents | Dismissed: Knick did not eliminate state sovereign immunity; suit barred absent waiver or valid abrogation |
| Whether Knick abolished the state exhaustion requirement and thus permits federal suits against states | Knick eliminated the state-procedure exhaustion rule and supports federal takings claims against states | Knick only removed the requirement to exhaust state remedies; it did not waive state sovereign immunity | Held for State: Knick equalized timing but did not waive or abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity |
| Whether Congress has validly abrogated or the State waived immunity for this claim | Owner contends Takings Clause demands a federal forum for just compensation | State argues no congressional abrogation under the Fourteenth Amendment and no state waiver occurred | Held: Neither abrogation nor waiver present; Eleventh Amendment bars the suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (held property owners need not exhaust state procedures before bringing a federal takings claim)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (explains only two circumstances to sue a State: congressional abrogation or state waiver)
- Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006) (municipalities are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity)
- Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003) (municipalities do not enjoy state sovereign immunity)
- Williams v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 928 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2019) (Knick did not alter Eleventh Amendment immunity in suits against States)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limits on suing states in federal court and principles of sovereign immunity)
- McMurtray v. Holladay, 11 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 1993) (Fifth Amendment takings claims against a state barred in federal court by Eleventh Amendment)