Williamson County Regional Planning Commission V. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City - Decision of The Court

Decision of The Court

Writing for the majority, Justice Blackmun held that Hamilton Bank's takings claim was not ripe for adjudication. The Court set out two independent requirements plaintiffs must meet before bringing a Fifth Amendment takings case in federal court.

First, the government entity charged with a taking must have reached "a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue." Here, neither the developer nor the bank had applied for variances that might have resolved five of the Commission's eight objections to the project. Liability for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment depends on a fact-intensive inquiry into the economic impact of regulations and their effect on the owner's investment-backed expectations, but those issues cannot be determined until the defendant agency "has arrived at a final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the regulations at issue to the particular land in question."

Second, before asserting a violation of the Just Compensation Clause in federal court, the plaintiff must attempt to obtain compensation through whatever procedures the state has provided for doing so. Here, Tennessee law provides for an inverse condemnation action to seek compensation from the state for a taking of property. Since this qualifies as a "'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation," Hamilton Bank could not allege a violation of the Just compensation Clause until it had sought to use this procedure and compensation had been denied. CAVEAT: This ruling was in error. The Tennessee Supreme Court which has the last word on interpretation of state statutes, has recently held that it had never held that regulatory takings claims may be compensated in Tennessee state courts on an inverse condemnation theory.

Since liability for a due process violation would require a finding that the Agency's regulations had the same effect as an outright appropriation of Hamilton's property, yet the effect of the regulations could not be determined because of the lack of a final determination (see above), the due process claim was also found to be unripe.