At times, Utah and California are on opposite sides of critical legal issues, but today we stand together on the solid principles of federalism.
Utah has joined our west-coast neighbor and 16 other states to ask SCOTUS to affirm a court of appeals decision that says state property law and land use regulation should be heard in state court before it goes to federal court.
You can read the brief here: 17-647 Knick v. Township of Scott Amicus Brief
We believe landowners should pursue compensation remedies that are available in state court before bringing takings claims in federal court.
Local courts are best situated to resolve complex, local conflicts – especially when individual rights and the needs of the community may be in tension. Federal courts tend to be removed from the day-to-day workings of state government and have different priorities; they are naturally designed to serve federal goals not state policy initiatives. Hearing land disputes in state court first also preserves each state’s ability to prevent regulatory overreaching by its own agents or subdivisions, thereby facilitating state efforts to ensure effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible regulation.
Of course, federal courts will always have the ability to provide guidance for the protection of federal constitutional rights.
We hope SCOTUS will see this issue the same way as Utah and California and affirm the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision of dismissal based on a similar decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985.