George Will: Let flawed court precedent fall |
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: Let flawed court precedent fall

George Will


The doctrine that court precedents should have momentum for respect — the predictability of settled law gives citizens due notice of what is required or proscribed — is called stare decisis. This Latin translates as: “To stand by things decided.” The translation is not: “If a precedent was produced by bad reasoning and has produced irrational and unjust results, do not correct the error, just shrug, say, ‘well, to err is human,’ and continue adhering to the mistake.”

Last week, the Supreme Court was roiled by an unusually pointed disagreement about stare decisis. It occurred in a case that demonstrated how, when judicial review works well, Americans’ rights can be buttressed and American liberty enlarged by a process that begins when the denial of a right is challenged by someone who thinks that precedents, although important, are not graven in granite by the finger of God. Someone like Rose Mary Knick.

This 70-year-old got her dander up and challenged a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent that substantially impeded her ability to contest a township ordinance that significantly burdened her property rights over her 90 rural acres in eastern Pennsylvania. In the past, that state had many burials on private land, and in 2012 Knick’s township decreed that all cemeteries (defined as any land ever used for burials) must be open to the public during daylight, and that township personnel could enter such properties to look for violations. There is some evidence that long ago there might have been a small burial plot on Knick’s property.

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause says that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Knick, who was exposed to cascading fines for resisting the township’s ordinance, wished to challenge the ordinance as a taking. But because of a 1985 court ruling, she was confronted with what Chief Justice John Roberts last week called a “Catch-22.”

That ruling held that before having access to federal courts, a plaintiff must first achieve a state court decision on the takings claims. But, wrote Roberts, if after the time and expense of the state process the plaintiff receives an adverse ruling there concerning just compensation, that ruling generally precludes a subsequent federal suit. So the court ruled 5-4 (Roberts with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority) that the 1985 ruling should not stand as a burden on plaintiffs seeking a federal remedy for state infringements of their constitutional rights.

A brief filed with the court on Knick’s behalf by Washington’s Cato Institute and others argued that the 1985 decision was an anomaly that effectively consigned “Takings Clause claims to second-class status. No other individual constitutional rights claim is systematically excluded from federal court in the same way.” The post-Civil War 14th Amendment was enacted to secure federal rights for all citizens, which requires access to federal courts “to vindicate their federal rights.” Congress wrote that amendment and other laws because, according to the brief, it worried that “state courts could not be trusted to adequately enforce the federal Constitution against the coordinate branches of state government.”

“Fiat Justitia ruat caelum” is Latin for “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Perhaps that would not be prudent. However, when a flawed precedent falls, this is hardly equivalent to the heavens falling.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.