35 F.4th 581
7th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Pavlock, Cahnman) own Lake Michigan beachfront property in Indiana and claim their deeds extend to the low-water mark.
- In Gunderson v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the State owns Lake Michigan and submerged lands up to the common-law ordinary high-water mark; the Indiana legislature later codified that result in HEA 1385.
- Plaintiffs were not parties to Gunderson and contend the state-court ruling (and HEA 1385) effected an uncompensated "judicial taking" of land between the high- and low-water marks.
- Plaintiffs sued state executive officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (not monetary compensation) to bar enforcement of Gunderson and HEA 1385.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and on alternative grounds; the Seventh Circuit affirmed (modifying dismissal to without prejudice), concluding plaintiffs lack Article III standing because the named defendants cannot cause or redress the alleged injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana Supreme Court's Gunderson decision (and HEA 1385) constitutes a judicial taking | Gunderson declared plaintiffs’ previously held private property no longer existed below the high-water mark, so it was a Fifth Amendment taking | State argues the dispute is one of state property law resolving title; no taking because plaintiffs never held the asserted right under state law | Court assumed judicial-takings concept unresolved nationally but held plaintiffs lack standing and did not reach viability; noted plaintiffs would fail on merits because Gunderson settled an unclear issue rather than extinguished an established right |
| Article III standing: causation and redressability | Plaintiffs say state officials enforce Gunderson/HEA 1385, so injunctive relief against them would restore plaintiffs’ ability to exclude the public | State says the injury flows from the independent action of the Indiana Supreme Court and legislature; named officials cannot grant title or change state-law ownership | Held plaintiffs have injury in fact but fail causation and redressability: defendants did not cause the injury and cannot redress it, so no Article III standing |
| Sovereign immunity / Ex parte Young exception (Coeur d’Alene issue) | Plaintiffs invoke Ex parte Young to obtain prospective relief against state officials | State relies on Coeur d’Alene to argue this suit is functionally equivalent to a quiet-title action and barred by sovereign immunity | Court did not decide Coeur d’Alene’s applicability because lack of standing was dispositive, but noted Coeur d’Alene would present a significant barrier |
| Merits standard for judicial taking (established-right test) | Plaintiffs argue they had established title down to the low-water mark prior to Gunderson | State contends pre-Gunderson law was unsettled; plaintiffs cannot show a clearly established property right that the court eliminated | Court noted precedent (Stop the Beach plurality) requires showing an established property right; Gunderson resolved an open question of state law, so plaintiffs could not meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunderson v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1171 (Ind. 2018) (state supreme court holding Indiana owns Lake Michigan up to the ordinary high-water mark)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (plurality proposed test for "judicial takings" and explored limits of the concept)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) (narrowed Ex parte Young by barring quiet-title-like suits in federal court against states)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claims may be brought in federal court without exhausting state remedies; did not eliminate states' sovereign immunity for damages)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states not "persons" under § 1983 for damages claims)
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021) (per se physical takings doctrine for government-authorized physical access to private property)