5th Amendment Violation – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court

Case Name: Peyman Pakdel, et ux. V. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.,

Case No.: 20-1212

Focus: 5^th Amendment Violation – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

When a plaintiff alleges a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court should not consider the claim before the government has reached a “final” decision. Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U. S. 725, 737 (1997). After all, until the government makes up its mind, a court will be hard pressed to determine whether the plaintiff has suffered a constitutional violation. See id., at 734; Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U. S. 513, 525 (2013). In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit required petitioners to show not only that the San Francisco Department of Public Works had firmly rejected their request for a property-law exemption (which they did show), but also that they had complied with the agency’s administrative procedures for seeking relief. Because the latter requirement is at odds with “the settled rule . . . that exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983,” Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 2) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted), we vacate and remand.

Petition granted. Vacated and remanded

Dissenting:

Concurring:

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.