McGuire v. United States
707 F.3d 1351
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- McGuire leased CRIT farmland in Parker, AZ, with BIA approval since the land was in U.S. trust; the lease divided by a canal.
- Three bridges crossed the canal; Eighth Avenue Bridge sat within a BIA right-of-way and was deemed unsafe, to be removed.
- BIA informed McGuire of impending removal and advised applying for a permit under 25 C.F.R. § 171.9 to replace the bridge.
- McGuire did not submit a written permit application; the successor tenant later obtained a permit and built a replacement bridge in 2002.
- McGuire sued in tribal court and then in federal court; the district court and Ninth Circuit addressed ripeness; the Claims Court held lack of cognizable property interest.
- Ultimately the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the takings claim not ripe and, even if ripe, no cognizable property interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the takings claim ripe for review? | McGuire argues ripeness was met via informal communication and sketching; BIA failure to issue a permit was a final position. | Existence of an informal permitting process required exhaustion; McGuire failed to submit a written permit application. | Not ripe; no final agency decision or exhausted permit application. |
| Did McGuire have a cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest in the bridge to support a takings claim? | Lease provisions and regulations gave him rights to access/replace the bridge. | Bridge not an improvement attached to leased property; no easement by necessity or enforceable property right to replace. | No cognizable property interest; no taking under Penn Central. |
| If ripe and there is a cognizable interest, does the removal/denial constitute a taking under Penn Central? | Removal impeded McGuire’s ability to replace the bridge and use the land as contemplated. | Even with ripeness, no compensable property interest to be taken; alternative routes remained viable. | Merits would fail; no compensable taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (final decision requirement for regulatory takings under Penn Central)
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) (permit systems; economically viable use before taking)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (ripeness dependent on final decision regarding development)
- Suitum v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) (regulatory takings prudential ripeness considerations)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (law of the case and transfer doctrine under § 1631)
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (property interests; revocable permits and cognizable rights)
- Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (2002) (defining cognizable property interest for takings)