Supreme Court Rejects Minneapolis Riot Takings Case and Clemente Image Dispute
The Supreme Court declined review in over 200 cases on Monday, including a constitutional challenge from Minneapolis business owners following the 2020 George Floyd protests. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices also refused to hear a trademark and takings clause dispute involving the estate of baseball star Roberto Clemente and a privacy lawsuit by actor Randy Quaid.
Context from Industry Pulse
The recent denials highlight the Supreme Court's current boundaries regarding the takings clause, particularly in how it applies to municipal emergency responses and intangible property rights. By refusing the Minneapolis case, the court avoided setting a precedent on whether temporary public safety measures like barricades constitute a compensable taking. Similarly, the rejection of the Clemente petition leaves the 1st Circuit’s narrow interpretation of property protections for celebrity legacies intact. Meanwhile, the court is shifting its focus toward high-profile December arguments involving semiautomatic weapon bans and the Eighth Amendment, while also weighing the reach of the Antiterrorism Act against major medical-device corporations.
"designed not to protect legacies but instead to remedy ... the taking of property for public use without just compensation."
The Supreme Court issued a series of orders from its November 6 conference, opting not to revive a lawsuit brought by businesses located at the intersection where George Floyd was killed. As SCOTUSblog reports, the petitioners alleged that the city of Minneapolis violated the takings clause of the Constitution by installing concrete barricades that blocked vehicle and pedestrian access for over a year. The business owners argued that the loss of police protection and resulting surge in crime caused significant economic harm, but state courts previously ruled against their claims for compensation.
In a separate matter involving the takings clause, the court turned away a petition from the family of Roberto Clemente. The baseball legend’s sons had challenged Puerto Rico’s use of their father’s image on vehicle license plates and tags. SCOTUSblog notes that while the initiative raised 15 million dollars for the territory, the family sought to block future use and recover damages. The 1st Circuit previously determined that the takings clause was not intended to protect legacies or intangible property in this specific trademark context.
The justices also dismissed a petition filed by actor Randy Quaid and his wife, Evgenia Quaid, concerning the unauthorized distribution of their restricted law-enforcement records. The couple alleged that a sheriff's department employee shared their criminal history and jail records with attorneys without a subpoena. However, lower courts found that these privacy claims were barred by litigation privilege, which protects communications made during judicial proceedings.
While many cases were denied, the court did request the solicitor general's input on a case involving whether pharmaceutical firms can be sued under the Antiterrorism Act. Additionally, SCOTUSblog indicates the court sent a case regarding jail policies for transgender inmates back to a lower court for reconsideration. The justices also granted the government permission to participate in upcoming oral arguments concerning the Second Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and parental rights in gender-transition cases.
The Industry Pulse Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear these high-profile property and privacy disputes reinforces existing lower court rulings, signaling a reluctance to expand constitutional compensation requirements for municipal actions or intangible legacy rights.