Amicus Curiae Brief — Ariyan Incorporated, dba Discount Corner, et al., Petitioners v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, et al.

No. 22-52

In the Supreme Court of the United States

__________

ARIYAN, INCORPORATED, DOING BUSINESS AS DISCOUNT

CORNER, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

v.

SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,

Respondents.

__________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

__________

BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AS AMICUS

CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

__________

Clark M. Neily III

Counsel of Record

Trevor Burrus

Nicole Saad Bembridge

CATO INSTITUTE

1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 842-0200

cneily@cato.org

July 22, 2022

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2

ARGUMENT ................................................................ 4

I. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT

REVIEW TO CLARIFY THAT THE

JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE

REQUIRES MORE THAN AN

UNENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT ................. 4

A. Governments May Not Defer

Payment of Compensation

Indefinitely or for Unreasonable

Periods of Time .......................................... 6

B. Without a Temporal Limit on

Payment, the Guarantee of Just

Compensation Is Hollow ........................... 7

II. REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO STOP

THE RECURRING PROBLEM OF

GOVERNMENT ARBITRARILY

DELAYING OR DENYING JUST

COMPENSATION ........................................... 9

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 13

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Archbold-Garrett v. City of New Orleans, 893

F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2018) ........................................... 9

Ariyan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New

Orleans, 29 F.4th 226 (5th Cir. 2022) ......... 2, 4, 5, 6

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 298

U.S. 349 (1936) ......................................................... 5

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) ......................... 8

Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (1919) ....................... 3, 7

Bromfield v. Treasurer & Receiver General,

459 N.E.2d 445 (Mass. 1983) ................................. 12

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct.

2063 (2021) ............................................................... 7

Commonwealth v. Lot No. 218-5 R/W, 9 N.

Mar. I. 533 (2016) ................................................... 10

Davis v. Burke, 179 U.S. 399 (1900) ........................... 5

Dep’t of Trans. v. Mixon, 864 S.E.2d 67 (Ga.

2021) ....................................................................... 12

Dep’t of Transp. & Dev. v. Sugarland

Ventures, Inc., 476 So. 2d 970 (La. Ct. App.

1985) ....................................................................... 10

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of

Glendale v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S.

304 (1987) ............................................................. 4, 5

iii

Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v.

Dolliver, 283 So. 3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

2019) ......................................................................... 9

Joslin Mfg. Co. v. City of Providence, 262 U.S.

668 (1923) ..................................................... 3, 6, 7, 8

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 449

(2005) ...................................................................... 11

Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) 3, 4, 5, 7

Lafaye v. City of New Orleans, 35 F.4th 940

(5th Cir. 2022) .................................................... 3, 10

Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. City of New

Orleans, 109 U.S. 285 (1883) ............................... 6, 8

Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148

U.S. 312 (1893) ......................................................... 8

Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380 (1895) .......................... 5

United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24

(1984) ........................................................................ 4

Violet Dock Port Inc., LLC v. Heaphy, No. 1911586, 2019 WL 6307945 (E.D. La. Nov. 23,

2019) ................................................................... 3, 10

Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C. v. Heaphy, No.

19-30992, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 42414

(5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020) .......................................... 11

Vogt v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 2001-0089 (La. App. 4

Cir. 03/27/02), 814 So. 2d 648 .................................. 9

Statutes

La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5109 ......................................... 5, 10

Constitutional Provisions

Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 ................................................ 12

iv

Ga. Const. art. I, § 3................................................... 12

La. Const. art. XII, § 10(C) .................................... 5, 10

U.S. Const. amend. V................................................... 2

U.S. Const. art. VI, §2, cl. 2 ......................................... 6

Other Authorities

Aaron N. Gruen, Takings, Just Compensation

and Efficient Use of Land, Urban and

Environmental Resources, 33 Urb. Law.

517, 543 (2001) ....................................................... 12

Anthony McAuley, Port Nola Board Approves

Land Purchase for $1.5B St. Bernard

Container Ship Terminal, Nola.com (Dec.

17, 2020),

https://bit.ly/3zcsJcGhttps://bit.ly/3zcsJcG ........... 11

Discourses on Davila, 6 Works of John Adams

(C. Adams ed. 1851) ................................................. 7

Eric Berger, The Collision of the Takings and

State Sovereign Immunity Doctrines, 63

Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 493 (2006) .............................. 6

James Madison, The Writings, vol. 6 (17901802) (1906) .............................................................. 2

Oral Argument, Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C.

v. Heaphy, No. 19-30992, 2020 U.S. App.

LEXIS 42414 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020),

https://bit.ly/3PlFkA8 ............................................. 11

Steve P. Calandrillo, Eminent Domain

Economics: Should “Just Compensation” Be

Abolished, and Would “Takings Insurance”

Work Instead?, 64 Ohio St. L.J. 451 (2003) ....... 4, 12

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1

The Cato Institute was established in 1977 as a

nonpartisan public policy foundation dedicated to advancing the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. Cato’s Robert A. Levy

Center for Constitutional Studies works to restore limited constitutional government, which is the foundation of liberty. Toward those ends, Cato publishes

books and studies, conducts conferences, and produces

the annual Cato Supreme Court Review.

Cato is interested in this case because it involves

the vitally important issue of protecting property owners from the abuse of governmental authorities who refuse to provide the “just compensation” that the Constitution mandates for compelled takings.

1 Rule 37 statement:

All parties were timely notified and consented to the filing of this brief. No part of this brief was authored

by any party’s counsel, and no person or entity other than amicus

funded its preparation or submission.

2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

“Government is instituted to protect property of

every sort” and “that alone is a just government, which

impartially secures to every man, whatever is his

own.” James Madison, The Writings, vol. 6 (1790–

1802) 101–02 (1906). Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment commands payment of just compensation when

the government seizes private property for public use.

U.S. Const. amend. V. Yet the Fifth Circuit interprets

this command to only guarantee the right to an unenforceable judgment, payable entirely at the government’s choosing.

Over four years ago, Louisiana courts entered justcompensation judgments for Petitioners, a group of

small business owners whose property and livelihoods

were seriously damaged by a Sewerage and Water

Board of New Orleans’s (“Sewerage Board”) construction project. App.K-5. And yet the Sewerage Board still

has not paid Petitioners and shows no intent of paying

anytime soon. Pet. Br. at 10. Petitioners sued in federal court, but the Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana

state law bars enforcement of takings judgments. Ariyan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 29

F.4th 226, 232 (5th Cir. 2022). According to the Fifth

Circuit, the Sewerage Board could unilaterally withhold payment for decades, if it ever pays at all, and

federal courts are powerless to do anything about it.

Id. (noting that the panel “understand[s] the [Petitioners’] frustration” at nonpayment of their just compensation judgments but holding that the Fifth Amendment does not require federal courts to provide relief).

But Petitioners’ property rights cannot be contingent upon the government’s largesse, and the Fifth

3

Circuit’s judgment conflicts with this Court’s own interpretation of what the Constitution requires.

This Court has held that the Just Compensation

Clause is self-executing and that judicial enforcement

in case of nonpayment is required. Knick v. Twp. of

Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2171 (2019) (the clause is selfexecuting); Joslin Mfg. Co. v. City of Providence, 262

U.S. 668, 677 (1923) (adequate provisions for enforcing

judgments are required).

Likewise, this Court has held that just compensation requires reasonably timely payment. Bragg v.

Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 62 (1919) (the Constitution requires compensation without unreasonable delay).

This is critical: without further guidance from this

Court regarding temporal limits on when just compensation is due, lower courts will continue to permit indefinite delays. For many elderly property owners, like

Petitioners, indefinite delay may be functionally

equivalent to denial of just compensation entirely.

Government stonewalling to delay or outright refuse payment is a recurring problem. Several recent

cases from within the Fifth Circuit alone illustrate the

frequency of the abuse. Lafaye v. City of New Orleans,

35 F.4th 940 (5th Cir. 2022); Violet Dock Port Inc., LLC

v. Heaphy, No. 19-11586, 2019 WL 6307945 (E.D. La.

Nov. 23, 2019). Predictably, poor and disadvantaged

communities are the ones most likely to have property

seized, and now, after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, they

will also be more likely to go uncompensated after the

government seizes their property. See generally, Steve

P. Calandrillo, Eminent Domain Economics: Should

“Just Compensation” Be Abolished, and Would “Takings Insurance” Work Instead?, 64 Ohio St. L.J. 451

4

(2003) (explaining that the government is incentivized

to take property in poor areas for public use).

It has been nearly four decades since this Court last

provided guidance on the Just Compensation Clause.

See United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24

(1984). The decision below makes clear that this lacuna has created confusion about what the clause requires—confusion that is now undermining the core

guarantee of just compensation for Louisianans and

others. This Court should grant review to clarify that

just compensation requires both reasonable promptness and enforceability.

ARGUMENT

I.

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO

CLARIFY THAT THE JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE REQUIRES MORE THAN AN

UNENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT

“[A] property owner acquires an irrevocable right to

just compensation immediately upon a taking[.]”

Knick 139 S. Ct. at 2172 (citing First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987)). Yet the Sewerage Board’s intransigence makes Petitioners’ right to compensation

illusory, and the Fifth Circuit says Louisiana law prevents federal courts from doing anything about it. Ariyan, Inc., 29 F.4th at 232 (finding “the core of Plaintiffs’ claims is foreclosed by settled law”). In effect, this

makes Petitioners’ property rights contingent on the

Sewerage Board’s grace.

After ruling that the Sewerage Board inversely

condemned Petitioners’ properties for a flood control

project, Louisiana courts entered just compensation

judgments. App.K-9. More than four years later, the

5

Sewerage Board still has not paid Petitioners a cent.

Pet.Br. at 10. This is not due to insufficient funds on

the part of the Sewerage Board, whose “latest financial

statements indicate that it possesses assets exceeding

$3 billion.” App.K-24. Rather, the Boards’ nonpayment

of the judgment is discretionary—discretion which, according to the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana is entitled to indefinitely. Ariyan, Inc., 29 F.4th at 232.

Holding that there is no federal remedy to enforce

the state court compensation judgments, the Fifth Circuit prevents an entire class of Louisiana landowners

who have suffered uncompensated takings from seeking relief in federal court. This ruling will allow local

government entities to hide behind state law provisions such as La. Const. art. XII, § 10(C) or La. Rev.

Stat. § 13:5109 to deny or defer paying just compensation indefinitely.

The Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of what the Just

Compensation Clause requires runs contrary to this

Court’s precedents. The Court has emphasized that

the clause “may not be evaded or impaired by any form

of legislation,” and that a landowner has “an unqualified right to a judgment for the amount of such damages, which can be enforced—that is, collected—by judicial process.” Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United

States, 298 U.S. 349, 368 (1936); Sweet v. Rechel, 159

U.S. 380, 402 (1895). The Court has described the Just

Compensation Clause as being a “self-executing,” enforceable right, meaning “it supplies a sufficient rule

by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and

protected or the duty imposed may be enforced.” Knick, 139 S. Ct. at 2171; Davis v. Burke, 179

U.S. 399, 403 (1900); see also First English Evangelical

Lutheran Church, 482 U.S. at 316 n.9 (the

6

Constitution “of its own force . . . furnish[es] a basis for

a court to award money damages against the government”). And, critically, it has held that “the requirement of just compensation is satisfied when . . . there

is adequate provision for enforcing the pledge.” Joslin

Mfg. Co. 262 U.S. at 677.

But far from recognizing a self-executing clause

that requires enforcement, the Fifth Circuit allows

Fifth Amendment property rights to be trumped by

state procedural rules. This means that Louisiana

property owners who are due just compensation must

“rely exclusively upon the generosity of the judgment

debtor.” Ariyan, Inc., 29 F.4th at 230 (quoting Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. City of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285,

295 (1883) (Harlan, J., dissenting). But this undermines the fundamental requirement that the “Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and

the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any

Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the

Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, §2, cl.

2; Eric Berger, The Collision of the Takings and State

Sovereign Immunity Doctrines, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev.

493, 498 (2006) (arguing that direct constitutional action against the state is practically necessary for the

right to just compensation to have any force). Without

review from this Court, Louisianans’ Fifth Amendment rights will continue to be contingent on their condemnors’ largesse.

A. Governments May Not Defer Payment

of Compensation Indefinitely or for Unreasonable Periods of Time

When government action rises to the level of a taking, it requires compensation without indefinite delay.

Accordingly, this Court has recognized as “settled” the

7

principle that unless “adequate provision is made for

the certain payment of the compensation without unreasonable delay,” a taking “contravene[s] due process

of law in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Bragg, 251 U.S. at 62. The Constitution requires “reasonably prompt ascertainment and payment” and “adequate provision for enforcing,” with the landowner being “paid—and paid promptly.” Joslin Mfg. Co., 262

U.S. at 677–78.

Finally, this Court recently emphasized that “allowing the government to keep the property pending

subsequent compensation to the owner . . . was not

what [the Framers] envisioned.” Knick, 139 S. Ct. at

2176. Collectively, these cases establish that if the government fails to pay a just compensation judgment

within a reasonable time, that failure represents a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

B. Without a Temporal Limit on Payment,

the Guarantee of Just Compensation Is

Hollow

“The Founders recognized that the protection of

private property is indispensable to the promotion of

individual liberty.” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141

S. Ct. 2063, 2071 (2021). In the words of John Adams,

“[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.”

Id. (quoting Discourses on Davila, 6 Works of John Adams 280 (C. Adams ed. 1851)). Accordingly, last term,

this Court reaffirmed that “[t]he government must pay

for what it takes.” Id. Yet because the value of the

judgment to Petitioners “depends necessarily upon the

remedies given for its enforcement,” the Just Compensation Clause is a guarantee in name only without a

court-enforceable due date. Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v.

8

City of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285, 295 (1883) (Harlan,

J., dissenting).

This Court has already developed factors for determining whether government action is “reasonably

prompt” in cases where satisfaction of a right depends

on timeliness, as it does here. Joslin Mfg. Co., 262 U.S.

at 677. In Barker v. Wingo, this Court set out four factors for determining when a delay in providing a

speedy trial exceeds constitutional bounds: length of

delay, the reason for the delay, the assertion of the

right, and prejudice to the person asserting a constitutional injury. 407 U.S. 514, 530–32 (1972). Courts

should require no less in the context of just compensation. Fifth Amendment property rights would be relegated to a bizarre second-class status—subservient to

state procedural rules—if the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is

allowed to stand. This Court must clarify that a temporal limit is required if the Just Compensation

Clause is to have any force at all.

It is no answer for the Sewerage & Water Board to

say that the compensation award is being delayed with

interest accruing on that amount. This is the equivalent of saying that injured landowners should be compelled to make an involuntary loan to the government

until such time as the government is ready to pay the

compensation judgment. That has the effect of placing

the burdens of government on the unfortunate few

whose land is taken, which runs afoul of the underlying premise of the Just Compensation Clause: to prevent government from disproportionately placing burdens on a select few rather than the public as a whole.

See Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S.

312, 325 (1893) (“[the Takings Clause] prevents the

public from loading upon one individual more than his

9

just share of the burdens of government, and says that

when he surrenders to the public something more and

different from that which is exacted from other members of the public, a full and just equivalent shall be

returned to him.”).

When landowners suffer direct or indirect condemnation of their property, as Petitioners did here, they

need just compensation promptly so that they can relocate, rebuild, or repair the damage. Pet. Br. at 8. Petitioners’ property damage included damaged foundations, shifting porches, broken floors, cracked interior

and exterior walls, broken and shifting fireplaces,

leaking roofs, and inoperable and leaky doors and windows. Id. An unenforceable state court judgment is no

substitute for the timely payment needed to remediate

those government-inflicted damages to private property.

II.

REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO STOP THE RECURRING PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT

ARBITRARILY DELAYING OR DENYING

JUST COMPENSATION

The Sewerage Board is far from the first government entity to arbitrarily refuse to pay compensation.

See, e.g., Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Dolliver, 283 So. 3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (government outright refused to pay compensation and refused to make any request to the legislature to appropriate the funds); Archbold-Garrett v. City of New Orleans, 893 F.3d 318, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018) (city allocated funds to pay just compensation only “as they see

fit”); Vogt v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 2001-0089 (La. App. 4

Cir. 03/27/02), 814 So. 2d 648, 653-55 (judgment creditors of levee district board could not obtain writ of seizure to satisfy just compensation judgment); Dep’t of

10

Transp. & Dev. v. Sugarland Ventures, Inc., 476 So. 2d

970, 976 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (just compensation judgments may only be satisfied by appropriation of funds

by state or municipal legislature); see also Commonwealth v. Lot No. 218-5 R/W, 9 N. Mar. I. 533 (2016)

(government took property, acknowledged its obligation to pay compensation, but didn't pay for more than

20 years).

Other recent Fifth Circuit cases involving the same

Louisiana laws the Sewerage Board cites illustrate the

frequency of this problem. The Fifth Circuit just denied en banc review in Lafaye v. City of New Orleans,

holding again that the government’s failure to honor a

judgment—even when that judgment calls for the return of personal property acquired by a government

unlawfully—cannot be enforced by federal courts. 35

F.4th at 940. As a result, the Lafaye plaintiffs, who are

waiting for the city of New Orleans to return traffic

fines illegally collected from them over twelve years

ago, will, like the Petitioners below, indefinitely be at

the government’s mercy.

Violet Dock Port Inc., LLC v. Heaphy concerned another arbitrary refusal of Louisiana state government

to pay just compensation after a property seizure. 2019

WL 6307945 at *1. The government condemnor in that

case, St. Bernard Port Harbor & Terminal District

(“St. Bernard”), cited the same Louisiana state protections the Sewerage Board relies on here to argue it

could not be compelled to pay the judgment due to Violet Dock. Id; La. Const. art. XII, § 10(c); La. Rev. Stat.

§ 13:5109. Denied relief in state court, Violet Dock filed

a Section 1983 action in federal district court, which

was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Violet Dock,

2019 WL 6307945 at *1.

11

A Fifth Circuit panel heard Violet Dock’s appeal,

and, during oral argument, the judges expressed dismay at St. Bernard’s refusal to pay the judgment. Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C. v. Heaphy, No. 19-30992,

2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 42414 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020)..

Judge Barksdale told St. Bernard, “you’ve got the

money. Pay up. This is really ludicrous.” Oral Argument at 23:54, Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C. v. Heaphy,

No. 19-30992, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 42414 (5th Cir.

Dec. 29, 2020).2 Judge Elrod expressed similar consternation when pressing St. Bernard for its legal position

on why it had not paid the compensation judgment

awarded to Violet Dock. Likewise, Judge Ho asked St.

Bernard’s counsel, “When is your client going to pay?”

Id. at 19:50. Ultimately, the panel referred the appeal

to mediation, which resulted in payment of the longoverdue compensation. See Anthony McAuley, Port

Nola Board Approves Land Purchase for $1.5B St. Bernard Container Ship Terminal, Nola.com (Dec. 17,

2020) (explaining that St. Bernard sold Violet Dock’s

property to Port NOLA for $18 million to satisfy the

settlement agreement).3

The Fifth Amendment’s safeguards are intended to

protect property “owners who, for whatever reasons,

may be unable to protect themselves in the political

process against the majority’s will.” Kelo v. City of New

London, 545 U.S. 449, 505 (2005) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Predictably, government stonewalling disproportionately affects the poor. Id. at 521–22

(Thomas, J., dissenting) (recognizing that the victims

of government takings are often the poor or disadvantaged). This is because wealthy communities and

2 Available at https://bit.ly/3PlFkA8.

3 Available at https://bit.ly/3zcsJcG.

12

special interest groups are usually the ones with the

resources necessary to scream “not in my backyard”

the loudest, and because the government’s direct financial incentives are to procure the lowest value

property possible, which is more than likely to be in

poor communities. Aaron N. Gruen, Takings, Just

Compensation and Efficient Use of Land, Urban and

Environmental Resources, 33 Urb. Law. 517, 543

(2001) (supporting “public choice theory” findings that

the wealthy and special interest groups exercise disproportionate influence in eminent domain decisions,

distorting society’s cost-benefit analysis); Calandrillo,

supra at 518. In the Fifth Circuit, disadvantaged Louisianans are now also more likely to be left without redress when the government unilaterally decides it will

not pay.

Other state constitutions and courts recognize that

an enforceable temporal limit is necessary to prevent

recurring nonpayment of just compensation. See, e.g.,

Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 (“Private property may be taken

or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has

first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”); Ga.

Const. art. I, § 3, (“private property shall not be taken

or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid”); Dep’t of Trans.

v. Mixon, 864 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 2021) (courts may enjoin

road project if government has not paid compensation);

Bromfield v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 459 N.E.2d

445, 448 (Mass. 1983) (property owners cannot be “relegated to standing idly by,” with compensation being

“the vague hope that on some unascertainable future

date their judgment will be satisfied”). Lacking recognition of such a requirement, this will continually be

the case in the Fifth Circuit.

13

The Just Compensation Clause is not an empty

guarantee, and the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous holding

conflicts with this Court’s own interpretation of what

the clause requires. To restore force to the Just Compensation Clause and ensure redress is available for

property owners arbitrarily denied the payment they

are due, this Court must clarify that just compensation

requires more than an unenforceable judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of

certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Clark M. Neily III

Counsel of Record

Trevor Burrus

Nicole Saad Bembridge

CATO INSTITUTE

1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 842-0200

cneily@cato.org

July 22, 2022