Aside from defending what amounts to theft by the state, Paxton had the gall to call a unanimous USC slapdown a victory.
He needs tar and feathering then run out on a rail.
Or municipality, or it’s employees.
The ruling was more than that. It held that no gov’mt body, including bureaucrats, can implement such a taking. Lots of states are letting admin bodies do eminent domain crappola and then turn around and sell seized property to real estate developers — just so the state can get more tax $$ from the developed property.
This ruling applies to all fines, fees, etc. Everything now has to be justifiable as directly related to the ......”goal” of the govm’t action. Even if a state passes a law making it legal to do this sort of thing, they can be sued.
This ruling means that when property is involved every gov’mt action is subject to being sued. Just imagine the class action suits on a water district implementing another $5 fee on whatever.
I agree. The State’s position here is so at odds with most of what Paxton says (and does), I wonder if there is something more here to how he was in the position of defending the State’s position.
Not a loss thar Freepers need to cry over.
This is a lot more complex than “Paxton lost”. Paxton and Texas rightly won the argument they were making — landowners who have their property taken by the state should first proceed through the state to claim just compensation for a taking.Assuming the state did a taking of private property for public purpose, there was never a question of whether the landowners deserved compensation. Instead it’s just a question of whether they have to follow state statutes and procedures to claim that compensation. Moreover, if the state statute doesn’t provide for just compensation, then the landowners would still have a cause of action under federal law. But they don’t get to go to federal law first. This was the right decision, IMO.
The 5th Circuit held that “the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as ap-
plied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not pro-
vide a right of action for takings claims against a state.”
As a matter of Constitutional law, that’s just dumb. And wrong. And dumbly wrong. The right to sue a state for takings has been long settled, and people do have a right to sue the state for a taking.
What was at issue here was whether the landowners had a private right of action directly under the 5th Amendment versus whether they had to sue Texas for the taking under the provisions and procedures of Texas law.
Paxton was not arguing that the landowners did not have a right to sue for the taking. Paxton was not arguing that the landowners did not deserve compensation if they could prove a taking.
Instead, Paxton was arguing that Texas law specifically provides the mechanism for landowners to sue for a taking and therefore the landowners did not have a right to sue directly in federal court for a taking under the 5th Amendment. As described in the syllabus to the SCOTUS opinion, the SCOTUS held that “The question here concerns the procedural vehicle by which a property owner may seek to vindicate that right.”
Note the phrase “procedural vehicle.” This case was not about a denial of property rights claims, but rather whether the landowners should follow Texas statutes to claim compensation for an alleged taking of Texas property under Texas law by Texas administrative agencies.
As the SCOTUS opinion further states, this would be a different issue if Texas law did not provide any Texas procedure for compensation or if Texas law did not provide for “just compensation” as required by the 5th Amendment.
Paxton won this case. As Justice Thomas opined: “We therefore vacate and remand so that DeVillier’s claims may proceed under Texas’ state-law cause of action.”
Texas never tried to seize property without just compensation. Texas did insist (and won) on the argument that the landowners should have to use the Texas statute and procedures that already existed in order to prove and claim their just compensation from the state.
Articles like this one from Mediaite are irresponsible and stupid. Absolute garbage. Literally any competent attorney could have explained this to the waste of a journalism degree that wrote this article.