WASHINGTON. September 29, 2006 – Today Rep. Calvert (R-CA) voted in favor of H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, which passed the House by 231-181.

"This bill corrects a poor decision handed down by the Supreme Court in which individuals with federal property rights are unable to raise federal taking claims in federal court," stated Rep. Calvert. "The decision makes absolutely no sense and required congressional action."

Under current law, property owners are now blocked from raising a federal Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court. The Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank requires property owners to pursue to the end all available remedies for just compensation in state court before the property owner can file suit in federal court under the Fifth Amendment. Then, just last year, in the case of San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court held that once a property owner tries their case in state court, and loses, the legal doctrine of claim preclusion requires federal courts to dismiss the claims that have already been raised in state court, even though the property owner never wanted to be in state court with their federal claim to begin with.

The combination of these two rules means that those with federal property rights claims are effectively shut out of federal court on their federal takings claims, setting them unfairly apart from those asserting any other kind of federal right, such as those asserting free speech or religious freedom rights, who nearly universally enjoy the right to have their federal claims heard in federal court in the first instance.

H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, corrects the unfair legal bind that catches all property owners in a Catch-22. This bill, which is based on Congress’ clear authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, would allow property owners raising federal takings claims to have their cases decided in federal court without first pursuing a wasteful and unnecessary litigation detour (and possible dead end) in state court.

###