Property Owners Deserve Their Day in Court

Our founding fathers thought the right to property was so fundamental that they included it in the law of the land, the United States Constitution.

Federal law and the Constitution provide individuals with protection from having their property “taken” by the government. Under these regulations, if property is taken for a public purpose, the owner has the right to be compensated. However, compensation is often not awarded without lengthy and expensive litigation. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act allows for a more straightforward and equitable access to the courts for all people, not just those with the financial endurance to withstand years of litigation.

This measure gives property owners their day in court. It does not attempt to choose sides in “takings” cases or circumvent local authority. It simply provides less complicated access to the federal courts while in no way giving the courts any new authority or jurisdiction over state and local governments.

In fact, a case would only be heard if an individual had gone through the appropriate process at the local level first.

Governmental bodies often have legitimate reasons for restricting the use of private property such as local zoning, environmental protection or other purposes. But when a governmental body infringes on an individual’s rights, as guaranteed under the Constitution, it should not take years for that person to have their case heard in federal court.

*

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled on a case brought by Bernadine Suitum. This case provides an excellent example of the need for property rights reform. Suitum was denied use of 99% of her property. She was told she could not build her retirement home or anything else on her lot.

For eight years, Suitum sought to have her request for compensation heard in the federal courts. However, it was not until after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that her case was “ripe” that the merits of her case will now be heard. Suitum has not received a penny from that decision. The Supreme Court simply ruled that she has a right to argue her case in federal court.

Why should the right to private property be treated differently from any other constitutionally protected right or law? Federal environmental laws are readily enforced in the federal courts. First Amendment claims against local governments have no trouble being heard.

Why not give property owners the same access to justice and allow them their day in court?