from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi
DAVIS, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
C. HO, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
court jury found that Mississippi state officials violated
the Takings Clause by exceeding the scope of a state easement
on private property. But the jury granted a monetary award
considerably lower than the amount of "just
compensation" sought by the property owner. So the
property owner, after losing on appeal in state court and
unsuccessfully seeking certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court,
brought this suit in federal court. The State moved to
dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, and the district court
granted the motion in an exhaustive opinion. We agree and
this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct.
2162 (2019). In its supplemental briefing, the property owner
contends, in effect, that Knick overturns prior
sovereign immunity law in cases arising under the Takings
Clause. But we find nothing in Knick to support that
well established under the Supreme Court's sovereign
immunity precedents that there are "only two
circumstances in which an individual may sue a State":
(1) Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity
consistent with the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment; or (2) State waiver of immunity. See Coll.
Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense
Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670 (1999). As the district court
correctly concluded, neither of these circumstances are
present in this case.
in Knick alters these bedrock principles of
sovereign immunity law. To begin with, the Court did not even
have occasion to re-consider sovereign immunity law in
Knick, because that case involved a suit against a
locality, and it is well established that local governments
are not entitled to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by states.
See, e.g., N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v.
Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189, 193 (2006)
("[T]his Court has repeatedly refused to extend
sovereign immunity to counties."); Jinks v. Richland
County, 538 U.S. 456, 466 (2003)
("[M]unicipalities, unlike States, do not enjoy a
constitutionally protected immunity from suit.").
does anything in Knick even suggest, let alone
require, reconsideration of longstanding sovereign immunity
principles protecting states from suit in federal court.
Rather, Knick held only that "a property owner
has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause"
cognizable in federal court "as soon as a government
takes his property for public use without paying for
it." 139 S.Ct. at 2170. Accordingly, Knick did
away with the previous rule requiring "a property owner
[to] pursue state procedures for obtaining compensation
before bringing a federal suit." Id. at 2173.
other words, to the extent that Knick has any effect
on suits against state governments, the Court simply put
takings claims against state governments on equal footing
with claims against the federal government. See id.
at 2170 ("We have long recognized that property owners
may bring Fifth Amendment claims against the Federal
Government as soon as their property has been taken.").
And nobody disputes that takings claims against the federal
government require the waiver of sovereign immunity contained
in the Tucker Act. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1491(a)(1)); id. at 2186 (Kagan, J., dissenting)
("The Tucker Act waives the Federal Government's
surprisingly, then, the Tenth Circuit has already held that
Knick does not alter traditional principles of state
sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Williams
v. Utah Dep't of Corr., 928 F.3d 1209, 1214 (10th
Cir. 2019) ("Knick did not involve Eleventh
Amendment immunity, which is the basis of our holding in this
case. Therefore, we hold that the takings claim against the
[Utah Department of Corrections] must be dismissed based on
Eleventh Amendment immunity."). We therefore affirm.
 In its original brief, the property
owner asked us to "address the tension" between
state sovereign immunity and the right to just compensation
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. That
determination, however, is one for the Supreme Court-not this
panel. See, e.g., McMurtray v.
Holladay, 11 F.3d 499, 504 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that
takings claims under the Fifth Amendment are "barred
because under the Eleventh Amendment, a citizen may not sue
his own state in federal court") (citing ...