The "Santini Reservation"

In a case actively supported by NAHB, Santini v. Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Services, 342 F.3d 118 (2nd Cir. 2003), the 2nd Circuit issued a “mixed bag” decision on the ripeness/takings issue. 

Mr. Santini had completed 74 acres of a subdivision, with plans to develop a second phase of the project on adjoining property, when it was announced that the site was one of three finalists for a hazardous waste facility.  A map of his property appeared on the front page of the local newspaper, next to the international symbol for radioactivity. In 1994, Mr. Santini filed a claim for inverse condemnation in the Connecticut state courts.  Having no success in the Connecticut state courts, Santini petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, where he was also denied.  Santini then filed a 5th Amendment Takings claim in U.S. District Court, where he was turned away on ripeness and jurisdictional preclusion issues.  Santini then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Finally, on August 28, 2003, the 2nd Circuit handed down a decision that Mr. Santini was not entitled to compensation for a taking based on his situation.  However, this court moved property owners forward in the ongoing battle over the Williamson County requirement that a property owner must file a 5th Amendment takings claim in state court before going to federal court.  In Santini, the court produced an extensive opinion on the ripeness of this type of claim, the jurisdiction of the federal court on takings in light of Williamson County, and why the claims are not barred based on the state court decision.  In fact, this was the first federal appeals court since 1992 to reach the merits of a takings claim that had been in state court first, instead of dismissing on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

The court recognized the argument that there is a fundamental problem with forcing initial state court litigation over federal constitutional issues and then barring property owners from federal court.  While the 2nd Circuit declined to hold that Williamson County means that claimants only needed to go through state administrative proceedings and not to state court before filing a federal suit, the court did set forth the “Santini reservation” doctrine, which allows future takings claimants to file a reservation during the state court proceedings such that a federal court may hear the claims following a state court decision.
[ return to top ]