Property Law
Judge Sotomayor’s record in this area demonstrates that she has followed the law to protect the rights of property owners and respects precedent.
In Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 345 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2003), Judge Sotomayor’s opinion for a unanimous panel permitted a property owner to challenge New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law. The court concluded that the case should go forward because the law had the potential to injure the plaintiff, and his case met other technical requirements. The district court later rejected Brody’s claims and the case went back to the Second Circuit. In Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 434 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2005), Judge Sotomayor joined an opinion ruling that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights had been violated because the town had not provided him with sufficient opportunity to challenge the determination that his property should be condemned for public use. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that represented the property owner, praised the Second Circuit’s opinion: “The Court confirmed that people do indeed have the right to challenge whether the government can take their property, and government agencies can’t hide the ball to deprive owners of that right.”
Similarly, Judge Sotomayor recognized the importance of protection for property rights in Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002). There, automobile owners challenged New York City’s policy that allowed the City to seize motor vehicles from individuals accused of certain crimes involving motor vehicles, such as driving while intoxicated, and then hold the vehicles in hopes of gaining title in civil forfeiture proceedings. These proceedings frequently took years to complete. Writing for the panel, Judge Sotomayor held that the Constitution demanded a speedy process to determine whether the government was likely to win the forfeiture claim. Demonstrating her common-sense approach, Judge Sotomayor wrote: “A car or truck is often central to a person's livelihood or daily activities. An individual must be permitted to challenge the City's continued possession of his or her vehicle during the pendency of legal proceedings where such possession may ultimately prove improper and where less drastic measures than deprivation pendente lite are available and appropriate.”
Some have tried to portray Judge Sotomayor as unfriendly to property owners by pointing to the decision in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, 173 Fed.Appx. 931, 2006 WL 898093 (2d Cir. 2006). There, a commercial developer brought a lawsuit in an attempt to harness a town redevelopment project for private gain, claiming that the redevelopment project did not constitute a “public use,” and therefore his property should not be condemned. Under relevant state and federal law, the developer had three years to bring the lawsuit. But instead of filing within the three year window, the developer waited five years after learning that his property was within the redevelopment zone to bring suit. The trial court judge dismissed the complaint for the plaintiff’s plain failure to abide by the relevant statute of limitations, and Judge Sotomayor joined the unanimous decision to affirm. In addition, the panel indicated that even if the lawsuit was not time-barred, the claims would have to be rejected because the court was bound to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London. The opinion did not discuss the merits of the Kelo opinion, but simply acknowledged that “the recent Supreme Court decision. . . . obliges us to conclude that [appellants] have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted.”
Judge Sotomayor’s record reveals that she respects property rights, and relies on precedent to decide the cases before her.