SCOTUS Denies Minneapolis Protest Takings Case Review for Businesses

• The Supreme Court denied review in over 200 cases, including a dispute from Minneapolis related to the George Floyd protests.
• Businesses at the intersection where Floyd was killed sued Minneapolis, alleging the city's actions caused significant economic losses and crime.
• Minneapolis blocked the intersection with concrete barricades for over a year and withdrew police protection, preventing access.
• The businesses claimed these actions violated the Constitution's takings clause and Minnesota's constitution by interfering with operations without compensation.
• State courts, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, rejected the businesses' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court's denial leaves those rulings in place.

The Supreme Court's refusal to take up this Minneapolis protest takings case underscores the significant hurdles businesses face when attempting to claim compensation for economic losses incurred during periods of civil unrest, even when government actions contribute to those losses.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a significant case stemming from the civil unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020. This decision was part of a broader list of over 200 cases for which the nation's highest court denied review, released on a Monday morning following its November 6 conference. Among the other cases rejected were those involving actor Randy Quaid and the sons of a renowned baseball legend, Roberto Clemente. Notably, from the same conference, the Court did grant one petition on a Friday, which will address the circumstances under which a bankruptcy court can decline to enforce an arbitration agreement.

TheThe Minneapolis dispute originated from a group of businesses situated at the intersection where George Floyd was killed. According to the businesses' petition for review, the city implemented measures that severely impacted their operations in the aftermath of Floyd's death. These actions included blocking the intersection with concrete barricades, which effectively cut off access for both vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, the city withdrew police protection from the area. These barricades remained in place for more than a year, a period during which the businesses reported substantial economic losses and a significant increase in violent crime within the vicinity.

The businesses subsequently initiated legal action in state court, contending that the city's actions constituted a violation of the Constitution's takings clause, alongside similar protections enshrined in Minnesota's constitution. Their argument centered on the premise that the city had interfered with their commercial operations without providing appropriate compensation for the resulting damages. However, their claims did not find favor with the state judiciary. Both a district court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled against the businesses.

Following these setbacks, the Minnesota Supreme Court further denied their request to review the case. This series of unfavorable state court decisions led the businesses to seek intervention from the United States Supreme Court, filing their petition for review in August. Their appeal to the highest court aimed to challenge the state courts' interpretations of the takings clause in the context of government responses to civil unrest and the resulting impact on private property and business operations. The Supreme Court's recent denial of certiorari effectively leaves the Minnesota state court rulings as the final word on the matter for these specific businesses.

The Supreme Court's refusal to take up this Minneapolis protest takings case underscores the significant hurdles businesses face when attempting to claim compensation for economic losses incurred during periods of civil unrest, even when government actions contribute to those losses. By denying review, the Court implicitly allows the state court decisions, which found no constitutional violation, to stand. This outcome reinforces the difficulty in establishing a federal takings claim for indirect economic losses stemming from public safety measures, particularly when those measures are implemented in response to widespread public disorder.

This decision from the Supreme Court, while not setting new precedent, signals a high bar for such claims at the federal level, suggesting that businesses impacted by government actions during civil unrest may find limited recourse through federal constitutional challenges. The denial means that the legal framework established by the Minnesota courts, which rejected the businesses' arguments regarding interference with operations and lack of compensation, remains unchallenged by the nation's highest judicial body. It highlights the often-complex interplay between governmental authority to maintain public order and the economic rights of private entities during extraordinary circumstances.

Lawyers advising businesses impacted by government actions during civil unrest should note that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear this case reinforces the difficulty in establishing a takings claim for indirect economic losses stemming from public safety measures, leaving state court precedents to stand. This signals a high bar for such claims at the federal level.

Source: Original reporting via the Supreme Court's orders list.