« Kulongoski v. Smith | Main | Larry? Oh Larry..? »

June 25, 2007

Five for Five

"Four for four." I'm seeing it everywhere today. The US Supreme Court issued a number of opinions today, and everyone is talking about four of them. But nobody is really talking about the fifth decision, Wilkie v. Robbins, and I find that one to be the most interesting -- and the most upsetting -- of all. A write-up about the case from February can be found here and includes links to the briefs of both parties. Basically, as I see it government officials were just handed carte blanche approval to abuse citizens with impunity, so long as they're not personally gaining from their self-indulgent abuse of power.

The appeal arose after federal officials used their regulatory power to coerce a Wyoming rancher to give the government an easement without just compensation. Among other claims, the rancher sued the government officials in their individual capacities for extortion under "RICO" laws.

Timothy Sandefu, who, it seems, values private property rights as much as I do, explained the decision this way:

One of the important questions in the Robbins case was whether the Fifth Amendment protects a property owner from government retaliating against him when he refuses to give up his land to the government for free. Before Frank Robbins bought his land in Wyoming, the former property owner had executed a deed giving the government an easement over the property. But the government failed to record the deed before Robbins bought the property unaware of it. And that naturally meant that the deed was no longer valid. Rather than negotiating fairly with Robbins, however, the government began a vendetta against him, demanding that he give up his property for no money, and harassing him until he would do so. They bullied him, broke into his property, drove away his customers, threatened him, brought frivolous legal prosecutions against him, and generally made his life hell in the way that only government can do. He filed a lawsuit arguing that this violated his right to say "no" to the government—a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's reference to private property rights.

The Supreme Court basically said that even if government officials engage in behavior that would normally be considered racketeering, if they're doing it in pursuit of their duties for the government and not for any benefit for themselves, then they cannot be held personally responsible for racketeering. It pretty much seals sovereign immunity in stone. No matter where you stand on private property rights, the fact that the Supreme Court has removed personal liability for such outrageous behavior by public officials should send a chill down your spine. If the other four decisions are all about shifting the balance of power away from the citizens and toward those in power, then what we're really looking at here is five for five.

Posted by Becky at June 25, 2007 02:01 PM