[PDF] fifth edition character sheet
[PDF] fifth grade transition words
[PDF] fifth republic france
[PDF] fifty shades darker from christian's perspective pdf download
[PDF] fifty shades darker kindle free download
[PDF] fifty shades of gray cast members
[PDF] fifty shades of gray cast name
[PDF] fifty shades of gray casting options
[PDF] fifty shades of gray reading
[PDF] fifty shades of grey
[PDF] fifty shades of grey christian's perspective pdf
[PDF] fifty shades of grey ebook
[PDF] fifty shades of grey through christian's eyes pdf free download
[PDF] fifty shades of grey: book
[PDF] figurative language goals for speech therapy
No. 17-795
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
on petItIon For a WrIt oF CertIorarI to the unIteD
StateS Court oF appeaLS For the FeDeraL CIrCuIt
BRIEF FOR OWNERS' COUNSEL OF AMERICA,
SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REVERSIONARY PROPERTY
OWNERS, AND PROFESSORS SHELLEY ROSS
SAXER AND JAMES W. ELY, JR., AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
277836
MICHAEL SAMMONS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II
Counsel of Record
STEPHEN S. DAVIS
MEGHAN S. LARGENT
LINDSAY S.C. BRINTON
ABRAM J. PAFFORD
ARENT FOX, LLP
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 857-6000 thor@arentfox.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
ROBERT H. THOMAS
DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK
HASTERT
1003 Bishop Street, 16
th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 531-8031
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Owners' Counsel of America
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Wh ether the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment is a self-executing waiver of sovereign
immunity, therefore vesting review of federal takings suits in Article III courts.
2. Wh ether Congress violates Article III of the
Constitution by requiring owners to adjudicate Fifth Amendment claims for compensation in a non-Article III tribunal. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.........................ii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
..............iv
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
..................1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE
ARGUMENT
....................................4
I. Co ngress cannot strip Article III courts
of jurisdiction over cases vindicating se lf-executing constitutional rights............4
A. Ar ticle III is "'an inseparable element
of the constitutional system of checks and balance that 'both defines the power and protects the independence of t he Judicial Branch'" .................4
B. Fi fth Amendment taking claims can
on ly be decided by Article III courts.....13
C. An i ndividual's ownership of his
private property is a "private right," no t a "public right" ....................15 iii
Table of Contents
Page
II. Se lf-executing constitutional rights do
not depend upon an act of legislative so vereign immunity........................18
III. Th e Seventh Amendment guarantees an
owner the right to trial by jury when the government takes private property in vi olation of the Fifth Amendment............21
CONCLUSION
.................................24 iv
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
Page CASES
Bank Markazi v. Peterson,
13 6 S. Ct. 1310 (2016).........................7, 8
Bond v. United States,
56 4 U.S. 211 (2011).........................10, 11
Bowen v. Massachusetts,
48 7 U.S. 879 (1988)............................13
Bowsher v. Synar,
47 8 U.S. 714 (1986).............................6
Brott v. United States, No . 17-712 ...........................3, 4, 18, 24
Buckley v. Valeo,
42 4 U.S. 1 (1976)...............................6
City of Monterey v.
Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.,
526 U .S. 687 (1999)............................23
Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U .S. 417 (1998).............................5
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor,
47 8 U.S. 833 (1986).........................12, 14
v
Cited Authorities
Page
Crowell v. Benson,
28 5 U.S. 22 (1932).............................16
Custis
v. Loether,
41 5 U.S. 189 (1974) ............................22
Ex parte Bakelite Corp.,
27 9 U.S. 438 (1929)............................16
v. Arkison,
13 4 S. Ct. 2165 (2014).........................6, 7
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.
Los Angeles,
48 2 U.S. 304 (1987)............................18
Galloway
v. United States,
31 9 U.S. 372 (1943)............................22
v. Norberg,
49 2 U.S. 33 (1989).............................23
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch,
83 4 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016)....................8
Humphrey's Executor,
29 5 U.S. 602 (1935).............................6
INS v. Chadha,
46 2 U.S. 919 (1983).......................8, 10, 14
vi
Cited Authorities
Page
Jacob v. City of New York,
31 5 U.S. 752 (1942)............................23
Jacobs v. United States,
29 0 U.S. 13 (1933).............................18
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States,
44 0 U.S. 668 (1979)............................18
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ...............passim
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States,
14 8 U.S. 312 (1893)......................14, 15, 17
Morrison
v. Olson,
48 7 U.S. 654 (1988)..........................6, 11
Murray's Lessee v.
Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.,
59 U .S. (18 How.) 272 (1855) .................10, 15
National Mut. Ins. Co.
v.
Tidewater Transfer Co.,
33 7 U.S. 582 (1949).............................9
NLRB v. Noel Canning,
13 4 S. Ct. 2550 (2014)..........................10
Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipeline Co.,
vii
Cited Authorities
Page
45 8 U.S. 50 (1982)........................passim
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v.
Greene's Energy Group, LLC,
No . 16-712 ...............................3, 4, 24
Parsons
v. Bedford, Breedlove & Robeson,
28 U .S. 433 (1830).............................22
Patachak v. Zinke,
No . 16-498 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
51 4 U.S. 211 (1995)...........................5, 8
Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n,
49 4 U.S. 1 (1990)..............................17
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
46 7 U.S. 986 (1984)............................17
San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. San Diego,
45 0 U.S. 621 (1981)............................18
Stern v. Marshall,
56 4 U.S. 462 (2011).......................passim
United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles,
35 0 U.S. 11 (1955)..............................9
viii
Cited Authorities
Page
United States v. Booker,
54 3 U.S. 220 (2005) ...........................23
United States v. Klein,
13 U .S. 128 (1872)..............................8
United States v. Lee,
10 6 U.S. 196 (1882)............................18
United States v. Will,
44 9 U.S. 200 (1980)...........................7, 9
United States v. Winstar Corp.,
51 8 U.S. 839 (1996).............................4
Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith,
44 9 U.S. 155 (1980)............................17
Wellness Inter. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif,
13 5 S. Ct. 1932 (2015).....................passim
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
34 3 U.S. 579 (1952).............................5
STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
U.S. Const., amend. V
.......................passim
U.S. Const., amend. VI
...........................22 ix
Cited Authorities
Page U.S. Const., amend. VII ....................21, 22, 23
U.S. Const., art. I, §1
.........................3, 5, 15
U.S. Const., art. II, §1
.............................5
U.S. Const., art. III, §1
......................passim
28 U.S.C. § 1331
.................................13
28 U.S.C. § 1346
.................................13
28 U.S.C. § 1491
.................................13
1 Works of James Wilson 363 (J. Andrews,
ed. , 1896) ....................................12
Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist No. 78
..............8
Declaration of Independence, para. 11
..............12
Forest McDonald,
novuS orDo SeCLoruM: the
InteLLeCtuaL orIgInS oF the ConStItutIon
(1985) .......................................16
James Madison, Federalist No. 47
..................5
James Madison, Federalist No. 48
.............5, 6, 10
James Madison, Federalist No. 51
................6, 9 x
Cited Authorities
Page
Malcom P. Sharp, The Classical American
Doctrine of "The Separation of Powers,"
2 U. C hi. L. Rev. 385 (1935)......................9
Michael P. Goodman, Taking Back Takings
Claims: Why Congress Giving Just
Compensation Jurisdiction to the Court
of Federal Claims is Unconstitutional,
60 V illanova L.Rev. 83 (2015) ...................16
Life Well Lived, (Christopher J. Scalia and
Ed ward Whelan, eds., 2017)....................21
1
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1 Owners' Counsel of America (OCA) is a network of the nation's most experienced eminent domain and property rights attorneys. They have joined together to advance, preserve, and defend the rights of private property owners, and thereby further the cause of liberty, because the right to own and use property is "the guardian of every other right," and the basis of a free society. See James W. Ely, the guardian of every other right: a Constitutional history of property rights (3rd ed. 2008). OCA members amicus in many of the property cases this Court has considered and OCA members have authored and edited treatises, books, and law review articles on property law.
Founded in 1976, Southeastern Legal Foundation
policy center that advocates individual liberties, limited government, and free enterprise. For forty years, SLF has advocated for the protection of private property interests from unconstitutional takings. SLF frequently amicus curiae briefs supporting property owners in state and federal court. See, e.g., Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S.Ct. 1933 (2017); army Corps of eng'rs v. hawkes, 136 S.Ct. 1807 (2016); Suitum v. tahoe reg'l planning agency,
520 U.S. 725 (1997); Dolan v. City of tigard, 512 U.S. 374
(1994); Lucas v. S.C. Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); and tenn. valley auth. v. hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).
1. All parties' counsel were told of amici's
brief more than ten days ago, and all parties have consented to this and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution to fund this brief. This brief has been paid for entirely by amici Curiae or their counsel. 2
The National Association of Reversionary Property
Owners is a Washington State non-profit foundation assisting property owners in the defense of their property rights. Since its founding in 1989, the Association has assisted over ten thousand property owners and has been extensively involved in litigation concerning landowners' interest in land subject to railroad right-of-way easements. See National Ass'n of Reversionary Property Owners v. Surface Transp. Bd., 158 F.3d 135 (DC Cir. 1998), and amicus curiae in Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990), and Marvin M. Brandt Rev.
Trust v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1257 (2014).
Professor Shelley Ross Saxer is the Laure Sudreau
Endowed Chair at Pepperdine University School of Law, where she teaches real property, land use, community property, remedies, environmental law, and water law. She has authored numerous scholarly articles and books on property and takings law. See, e.g., David L. Callies,, Robert H. Freilich and Shelley Ross Saxer, Land Use (American Casebook Series) (7th ed. 2017); Grant Nelson, Dale Whitman, Colleen Medill, and Shelley Ross Saxer, Contemporary Property (4th ed. 2013); David Callies and Shelley Ross Saxer, Is Fair Market Value Just Compensation? An Underlying Issue Surfaced in Kelo (in Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context, Dwight Merriam and Mary Massaron Ross, eds., 2016).
Professor James W. Ely, Jr., is the Milton R.
Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt
University Law School. He is a renowned property rights expert whose career accomplishments were recognized with both the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize and the Owner Counsel of America Crystal Eagle Award in 3
2006. Professor Ely is the co-author of the leading treatise,
quotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20
[PDF] Fifth Amendment - GovInfogov