No. 16-1466 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit KEVIN BROTT; KATHALEEN BONDON; LOUIS CHURCHWELL; PHARQUIETTE CHURCHWELL; FREDRICKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; KAREN FRISCO; PATRICIA GREEN; VERONICA HARWELL-SMITH; RICKEY HOLDEN; CAROLYN HOLDEN; ROBERT JONES; JEREMY KEITH; JOEL F. KOWALSKI; SHARON KOWALSKI; THERESA LOPEZ; ILEINE MAXIN; THOMASINE MESHAWBOOSE; THOMAS NAVARINI; LUIS SANTILLANES; YOLANDA SANTILLANES; WESTSHORE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INCORPORATED; 2017 8TH, LLC; 2170 SHERMAN, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids, No. 1:15-cv-00038. The Honorable Janet T. Neff, Judge Presiding. BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE II MATTHEW L. VICARI MEGHAN S. LARGENT STEPHEN J. VAN STEMPVOORT STEPHEN S. DAVIS MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & ARENT FOX LLP CUMMISKEY, P.L.C. 1717 K Street, NW 45 Ottawa Ave. SW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (202) 857-6000 (616) 831-1700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants COUNSEL PRESS ∙ (866) 703-9373 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case: 16-1466 Document: 10 Filed: 04/28/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest Sixth Circuit Case Number: 16-1466 Case Name: Brott, et al. v. United States Name of counsel: Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1, Kevin Brott, et al. Name of Party makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? If Yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party: No. 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? If yes, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest: No. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on _____________________________________April 28, 2016 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by placing a true and correct copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to their address of record. s/ Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II This statement is filed twice: when the appeal is initially opened and later, in the principal briefs, immediately preceding the table of contents. See 6th Cir. R. 26.1 on page 2 of this form. 6CA-1 8/08 Page 1 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST .................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT .......................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 8 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 10 I. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 vests the district court with “original jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution” which includes these owners’ Fifth Amendment claim for compensation ....................................................................... 10 A. Article III courts have federal question jurisdiction of Fifth Amendment claims under §1331 ..................................... 10 B. The Tucker Act does not invalidate federal question jurisdiction of Fifth Amendment claims ................................... 11 C. Constitutional avoidance counsels against construing the Tucker Act as granting exclusive jurisdiction of Fifth Amendment claims to an Article I tribunal .............................. 14 D. The history of the Tucker Act and Claims Court demonstrate that, as to Fifth Amendment taking claims, the CFC’s jurisdiction is concurrent not exclusive ................... 16 -ii- II. The Constitution guarantees owners the ability to adjudicate their Fifth Amendment right to compensation in an Article III court ..................................................................................................... 21 A. Separation of powers prohibits Congress from conferring “judicial Power” on non-Article III tribunals ........................... 22 1. The authority to decide cases is the “constitutional birthright” of Article III courts which Congress cannot take away ................................. 22 2. Separation of powers protects these Michigan landowners’ liberty and property ................................... 25 3. The Court of Federal Claims is not an Article III court ............................................................... 27 4. Adjudicating Fifth Amendment compensation is an “inherently judicial” endeavor ...................................... 28 B. “Sovereign immunity” does not excuse the federal government from its constitutional obligation to justly compensate these owners .......................................................... 29 1. The Constitution’s guarantee of just compensation does not depend upon Congress waiving sovereign immunity ......................................................................... 30 2. The Fifth Amendment is a self-executing, constitutionally-founded guarantee of compensation……………………………………… ...... 36 3. Congress may not abrogate by statute the right to just compensation guaranteed by the Constitution ........ 42 III. Congress cannot deny these owners their Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury ............................................................................. 44 A. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in Fifth Amendment inverse condemnation suits .............. 44 B. Congress cannot deny the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury ................................................................................ 55 -iii- CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 57 -iv- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases A. Supreme Court Decisions Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 511 (2012) ............................................................................................. 39 Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) ................................................................................................ 39 B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1293 (2015) ........................................................................................... 32 Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S.Ct. 1310 (2016) ............................................................................... 23, 24, 25 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403 (1878) ................................................................................................ 47 Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) ........................................................................................ 25, 26 Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U.S. 189 (1910) .............................................................................................. 54 Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) .............................................................................................. 12 Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) .............................................................................................. 32 Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) .............................................................................................. 24 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122 (1976) .......................................................................................... 24 Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S.Ct. 1017 (2013) ........................................................................................... 18 -v- Chappell v. United States, 160 U.S. 499 (1896) .............................................................................................. 52 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) ............................................................................................ 30, 33 City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999) .................................................................................. 47, 48, 54 Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) ................................................................................................. 23 Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986) .................................................................................. 15, 26, 28 Custis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) ........................................................................................ 45, 46 Custiss v. The Georgetown & Alexandria Tpk. Co., 10 U.S. 233 (1810) ................................................................................................ 53 Duke Power v. Carolina Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (1978) .......................................................................................... 13, 21 Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524