Michael Zito v. N.C. Coastal Resources Comm.
8f4th281
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- Michael and Catherine Zito owned a beachfront lot in South Nags Head, NC; their house burned in 2016 and they sought to rebuild.
- The property lies on a barrier island regulated by North Carolina’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which imposes setback requirements and requires permits for development in areas of environmental concern.
- The Zitos’ lot qualified for a grandfather setback but was only ~12 feet from the vegetation line, so the Town denied a permit; the Zitos sought a variance from the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, which denied it in December 2018.
- The Zitos sued in federal court alleging a Fifth Amendment taking; the Commission moved to dismiss on state sovereign (Eleventh Amendment) immunity grounds and the district court granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Commission is an arm of the State and (2) Hutto controls: Eleventh Amendment bars federal takings suits against States when state courts remain open to adjudicate takings claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars a federal takings suit against the Commission | Takings Clause is self-executing and, after incorporation, overrides state sovereign immunity for takings claims | Sovereign immunity applies; no blanket Takings Clause exception; Hutto controls | Sovereign immunity bars the federal suit; affirmed |
| Whether Knick v. Township of Scott abrogates Hutto or removes sovereign immunity barrier | Knick allows federal takings suits and thus undermines Hutto’s rule | Knick addressed ripeness/substantive ripeness, not Eleventh Amendment; it did not eliminate state sovereign immunity | Knick did not abrogate Hutto or eliminate sovereign immunity for state defendants |
| Whether North Carolina courts remain open and provide adequate remedies for takings claims | §113A-123(b) procedure is “exclusive” and may invalidate regulation without providing compensation (esp. for temporary takings), so state courts are not adequate | North Carolina law (including Corum) provides state-court remedies for compensation; §113A-123(b) only determines whether a taking occurred, not all remedies | NC courts are open and provide a reasonable, certain, adequate remedy; Hutto bars federal suit |
| Whether §113A-123(b) functions as an impermissible exhaustion requirement under Knick | The §113A-123(b) process effectively forces exhaustion and is inconsistent with Knick | States may set procedural rules in their own courts; Knick forbids using state procedures to bar federal claims, but does not stop states from conditioning state-court relief | The statutory procedure is permissible; it does not violate Knick or the Supremacy Clause as applied here |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2014) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal takings claims against States when state courts are open to adjudicate them)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claim ripens for federal suit when government takes property without compensation)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (state sovereign immunity stems from preconstitutional sovereignty and is not limited to the Eleventh Amendment text)
- Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13 (1933) (Takings Clause is self-executing for federal takings)
- Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (1994) (due process requires a remedy for unlawful tax collection, but Eleventh Amendment limits federal forum for suit against states)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (upheld administrative-exhaustion requirement imposed by statute in takings-type context)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (limits on suits for damages against States and state officials in their official capacities)
- Allen v. Cooper, 140 S. Ct. 994 (2020) (Bankruptcy Clause exception to sovereign immunity is narrow and unique)
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (prior rule requiring use of state procedures before federal takings claim; later overruled on ripeness by Knick)
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988) (States may establish procedural rules for litigation in their courts)