FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a petition from two Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, residents challenging the use of eminent domain to take their properties for a Foxconn Technology Group plant project. The residents, Pamela J. Antosh and Ned E. Lashley, alleged that federal courts improperly dismissed their constitutional takings claims as duplicative of arguments made in a state court case.

The decision leaves intact an April ruling from the Seventh Circuit that upheld the dismissal of the federal suit, which claimed the village of Mount Pleasant impermissibly took their property for private purposes under the guise of a public benefit.

Residents Argue Constitutional Claims Were Barred

Antosh and Lashley had initially contested the compensation they received when Mount Pleasant used eminent domain in 2019 to acquire their properties for the Foxconn project. The state court proceedings focused on whether the residents were adequately compensated. However, after key rulings went against them in state court, the residents filed a federal lawsuit asserting that the takings violated their constitutional rights.

They argued that Wisconsin law prevented them from raising constitutional claims alongside their compensation challenge, effectively barring them from litigating whether the property was taken for a private rather than public purpose.

“The result of these decisions bars the landowners... from litigating the constitutional question of whether their property was impermissibly taken for a private purpose,” the residents argued in their petition to the Supreme Court.

Federal and State Courts Rebuff Residents

The Seventh Circuit dismissed the federal case, agreeing with U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig, who found the lawsuit to be “gamesmanship” designed to sidestep state court rulings. Judge Ludwig also criticized the plaintiffs’ attorney, Erik S. Olsen, for filing the federal case after years of litigation in state court.

The Seventh Circuit held that under Wisconsin law, property owners must choose between challenging the compensation amount or the validity of the taking itself. By pursuing compensation claims first, Antosh and Lashley forfeited the ability to challenge the legality of the taking.

The panel also applied the Colorado River doctrine, which bars federal cases that parallel ongoing state proceedings, finding that the residents’ state and federal cases shared “obvious similarities.”

Mount Pleasant Defends Eminent Domain Actions

The village of Mount Pleasant maintained that the land acquisition was necessary for infrastructure supporting the Foxconn project, including a highway intersection. While the promised $10 billion Foxconn plant has largely been abandoned, the village argued in its Supreme Court brief that the residents’ federal case was a last-minute attempt to overturn unfavorable state rulings.

In its opposition, the village referenced the lower courts’ criticisms of the plaintiffs and their counsel, stating that these “scathing rebukes” underscored the flaws in the petition.

Supreme Court's Denial

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the Seventh Circuit’s decision intact. Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have granted the petition but did not elaborate.