U. S. SUPREME COURT
Recent Supreme Court Opinions
10 Cases Listed
Updated: July 18, 2007
Charles Wilkie, et al., v. Harvey Frank Robbins, No. 06-219
Decision Below: 438 F.3d 1074
Cert. Granted: 12/01/06
This case involves a damages action brought against officials of the Bureau of Land Management in their individual capacities based on alleged actions taken within the individuals' official regulatory responsibilities in attempting to obtain a reciprocal right-of-way across private property intermingled with public lands. The following questions are presented:
1. Whether government officials acting pursuant to their regulatory authority can be guilty under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., of the predicate act of extortion under color of official right for attempting to obtain property for the sole benefit of the government and, if so, whether that statutory prohibition was clearly established.
2. Whether respondent's Bivens claim based on the exercise of his alleged Fifth Amendment rights is precluded by the availability of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., or other statutes for the kind of administrative actions on which his claim is based.
3. Whether the Fifth Amendment protects against retaliation for exercising a "right to exclude" the government from one's property outside the eminent domain process and, if so, whether that Fifth Amendment right was clearly established.
To read Community Rights Counsel's brief click here.
Rapanos v. United States, S. Ct. No. 04-1034
Decision Below: 376 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2004)
Lower Court Case Number: 03-1489
Cert. Granted 10/11/05
Consolidated with 04-1384 and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.
- Does the Clean Water Act prohibition on unpermitted discharges to
"navigable waters" extend to nonnavigable wetlands that do not even abut a
- Does extension of Clean Water Act jurisdiction to every intrastate
wetland with any sort of hydrological connection to navigable waters, no
matter how tenuous or remote the connection, exceed Congress'
constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states?
Click here for more information
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, S. Ct. No. 04-1384
Decision Below: 391 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2004)
Lower Court Case Number: 03-1700
Cert. Granted 10/11/05
Consolidated with 04-1034 and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.
- Does the Clean Water Act extend to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated
from any of the "waters of the United States?"
- Do the limits on Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce
preclude an interpretation of the Clean Water Act that would extend federal
authority to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from any of the "waters
of the United States?"
- State Comments on Jan. 10, 2003 “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”
- Local Government Comments on Jan. 10, 2003 “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”
- Tribal Comments on Jan. 10, 2003 “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”
- Memorandum from Diana Klemans, Chief, Surface Water Assessment Section, Water Bureau, Dep’t of Envt’l Quality, to Peter Manning, Division Chief, Dep’t of Attorney General (Jan. 10, 2006)
Susette Kelo, Thelma Brelesky, Pasquale
Cristofaro, Wilhelmina and Charles Dery, James and Laura Guretsky,
Pataya Construction Limited Partnership, and William Von Winkle
v. City of New London and New London Development Corporation,
S. Ct. 04-108
Petition Filed: July 19, 2004
Cert. Granted: September 27, 2004
Opinion Issued: June 23, 2005
Lower Court Opinion: The decision of the Supreme Court of
Connecticut is reported at Kelo v. City of New London,
843 A.2d 500 (Conn.2004).
1. What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use
requirement provide for individuals whose property is being
condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the
sole purpose of "economic development" that will
perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?
In January 2005, CRC filed a brief in this case:
Client: National League of Cities, National Conference
of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Council
of State Governments, National Association of Counties,
International Municipal Lawyers Association, and International
City/County Management Association
Issues: Public use, eminent domain
Brief Filed: January 21, 2005
CRC's Amicus Brief
a brief write-up on Kelo
San Remo Hotel L.P., Thomas Field,
Robert Field, and T&R Investment Corp., v. City and County
of San Francisco, Department of City Planning, City Planning
Commission, Board of Permit Appeals, Board of Supervisors
of the City and County of San Francisco, S. Ct. No. 04-340
Petition Filed: September 7, 2004
Cert. Granted: December 10, 2004
Opinion Issued: June 20, 2005
Lower Court Opinion: The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reported
as San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco,
364 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004)
The City and County of San Francisco adopted an ordinance
that prohibited hotels from continuing their historic, duly-licensed
operation as hotels, but allowed hotel owners to avoid those
restrictions by paying an exaction. Petitioners brought
this action challenging the exaction based on the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
initially refused to reach the merits of the constitutional
challenge, finding that petitioners were required to ripen
their claim by seeking compensation in state court under
Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank
of Johnson City. Once the claim was ripe, the Ninth
Circuit again refused to reach the merits of the constitutional
challenge, finding that the claim was barred by issue preclusion.
In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit held that
the California Supreme Courts' refusal to apply heightened
scrutiny to legislative exactions under state law is consistent
with federal Takings law. The questions presented are:
1. Is a Fifth Amendment Takings claim barred by issue preclusion
based on a judgment denying compensation solely under state
law, which was rendered in a state court proceeding that
was required to ripen the federal Takings claim?
2. Is deferential scrutiny, akin to the rational basis
test, appropriate for exactions imposed by legislation even
though exactions imposed by administrative adjudications
are subject to heightened scrutiny under Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard?
In March 2005, CRC filed a brief in this case:
Client: Community Rights Counsel, California State
Association of Counties, League of California Cities, and
American Planning Association
Issues: Williamson County, issue preclusion,
Full Faith and Credit Act
Brief Filed: March 1, 2005
a brief write-up on San Remo
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney
General, et al., v. Angel McClary Raich, et al., S. Ct.
Opinion Issued: June 6, 2005
1. Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S. C. 801
et seq., exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce
Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession
of marijuana for purported personal "medicinal"
use or to the distribution of marijuana without charge for
In August 2004, CRC filed a brief in this case:
Client: Community Rights Counsel
Issues: Commerce Clause authority
Brief Filed: August 12, 2004
CRC's Amicus Brief
for the Petitioners (PDF)
for Respondents (PDF)
Supreme Court Opinions (all are on PDF format):
per Justice Stevens
Thomas, separate dissent
Linda Lingle, Governor
of the State of Hawaii, and Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General
of the State of Hawaii v. Chevron USA, Inc., S. Ct. No.
Petition Filed: July 30, 2004
Cert. Granted: October 12, 2004
Opinion Issued: May 23, 2005
Lower Court Opinion: The Ninth Circuit's opinion is reported
at 363 F.3d 846. The District Court's opinion is reported
at 198 F.Supp.2d 1182.
1. Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court
to invalidate state economic legislation on its face and
enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that the legislation
does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest,
without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes
the economic value or usefulness of any property.
2. Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation
Clause whether state economic legislation substantially
advances a legitimate state interest, should apply a deferential
standard of review equivalent to that traditionally applied
to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment
for that of the legislature by determining de novo,
by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, whether the
legislation will be effective in achieving its goals.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington,
S. Ct. 01-1325
For more info on the IOLTA case, including briefs, oral
argument transcript, and background information click
Thomas R. Phillips, Chief Justice,
Nathan R. Hecht, Justice, Craig T. Enoch, Justice, Priscilla
R. Owens, Justice, James A. Baker, Justice, Justice, Deborah
G. Hankinson, Justice, Harriet O'Neill, Justice and Xavier
Rodriguez, Justice, Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation,
and Richard Tate, v. Washington Legal Foundation, William
R. Summers, and Michael J. Mazzone, S. Ct. No. 02-01
Petition Filed: June 26, 2002
**(Motion for expedited consideration denied)**
Lower Court Opinion: 270 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2001); 86 F. Supp.
2d 617 and 86 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Tex. 2000)
On March 31, 2003, cert. was granted, the decision reversed
and remanded to the 5th circuit for consideration in light
of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.
1. Whether the Texas Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts
("IOLTA") program "takes" private property
within the meaning of the Just Compensation Clause of the
2. Whether a claimant who has suffered no economic loss
is nonetheless entitled to relief, including injunctive
or declaratory relief, under the Just Compensation Clause.
3. Whether the claims against the Chief Justice and Justices
of the Supreme Court of Texas are subject to dismissal on
grounds of official immunity.
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council
v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, S. Ct. No. 00-1167
Petition Filed: Jan. 18, 2001
Docketed: Jan. 19, 2001
Lower Court Ruling: 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2000)
Question Presented (as formulated by the Supreme Court):
Whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that a
temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute
a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings
Clause of the United States Constitution?
To read more about this case, click
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,
S. Ct. No. 99-2047
|(Click on the photo for a closer view)
For briefs, oral argument transcripts, and photos, click
To read CRC's press statement, click here.
To read the various opinions of the Justices, click here.
For a summary and analysis of the ruling,
|(Click on the photo for a closer view)
Links to full text of opinion,
case background, briefs, oral argument to full text of opinion,
case background, briefs, oral argument
City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey,
U.S. Supreme Court Rules For Developer, But Affirms Community