Opinion ID: 222221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Lack of an Alternative Forum for Takings Claims

Text: Jachetta argues that the Eleventh Amendment cannot bar an inverse condemnation action where, as here, the plaintiff lacks an alternative forum to pursue his constitutional claim. We have held that the Eleventh Amendment bars inverse condemnation actions brought against a state in federal court. Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir.2008). However, we have also held that although the Eleventh Amendment bars such actions in federal court, sovereign immunity may not stand in the way of recovery in state court  because of the self-executing character of the Takings Clause. Id. at 954 (emphasis added). [S]tate courts must ... be available to adjudicate claims brought under the federal Takings Clause.... [T]his constitutionally enforced remedy against the States in state courts can comfortably co-exist with the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States from similar actions in federal court. Id. at 954-55; see also DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 528 (6th Cir. 2004) ([W]here the Constitution requires a particular remedy, such as ... through the Takings Clause ..., the state is required to provide that remedy in its own courts, notwithstanding sovereign immunity.); Manning v. N.M. Energy, Minerals & Natural Res. Dep't, 140 N.M. 528, 144 P.3d 87, 95 (2006) ([T]he Takings Clause creates a cause of action against a state which is actionable in state court and to which the state may not assert immunity.); SDDS, Inc. v. State, 650 N.W.2d 1, 9 (S.D.2002) ([T]he Eleventh Amendment will not immunize states from compensation specifically required by the Fifth Amendment.). Relying on this latter holding, Jachetta argues that if the Eleventh Amendment bars his inverse condemnation action in federal court, he will have no judicial forum in which to pursue his self-executing takings claim. That is so, Jachetta asserts, because his inverse condemnation action requires the adjudication of competing rights in Indian allotments, something that only federal courts may do. We acknowledge the possibility that if Jachetta brings his inverse condemnation action in state court, that court may dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Congress granted jurisdiction to certain states, including Alaska, over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in ... Indian country. 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a). However, Congress reserved for the federal courts jurisdiction over questions involving the ownership or right to possession of property that belong[s] to any Indian and that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. Id. § 1360(b). As interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court, § 1360(b) deprives state courts of jurisdiction over actions in which they would have to resolve competing interests to Native allotment land. Foster v. State, 34 P.3d 1288, 1291 (Alaska 2001); see also Heffle v. State, 633 P.2d 264, 269 (Alaska 1981). Here, Alaska argues that it was authorized to remove gravel from Parcel B under a federal permit that it was issued in 1968, three years before Jachetta filed his allotment application. Jachetta replies that, even though he applied for his Native allotment in 1971, his interest in Parcel B relates back to 1960, when he first occupied the land, and trumps any interest Alaska may have acquired by virtue of a federal permit in 1968. Though we have no occasion to address the merits of these contentions, we acknowledge that Jachetta's inverse condemnation action may require the state court to resolve competing interests to Native allotment land and, accordingly, could be dismissed by Alaska courts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Foster, 34 P.3d at 1291. Nevertheless, we hold that Jachetta's remedy lies in state court. Of the two possible fora in which Jachetta can bring his inverse condemnation claim, the federal forum is clearly unavailable to him. See Seven Up Pete, 523 F.3d at 955 ([E]very court of appeals to have faced this question has ... held that the Eleventh Amendment bars Fifth Amendment reverse condemnation claims brought in federal district court.). Accordingly, Jachetta must file his inverse condemnation action against Alaska in state court and afford that court an opportunity to address the interplay between 28 U.S.C. § 1360(b) and the constitutionally mandated remedy for Takings Clause violations. At that point, the state court can decide whether § 1360(b) deprives it of jurisdiction over Jachetta's inverse condemnation claim and, if it does so, whether § 1360(b) is constitutional in light of the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause. If the state court nevertheless dismisses Jachetta's action for lack of jurisdiction, Jachetta can then seek review in the United States Supreme Court.