9-0 Supreme ruling lets owners seek compensation for land the state took
The U.S. Supreme Court has unveiled a 9-0 ruling setting out a definitive path for people whose property is impacted by government actions, even well-intentioned actions, to claim compensation. The decision came in DeVillier et al. v Texas where the state of Texas decided to designate a highway, Interstate 10 between Houston and Beaumont, as…
The post 9-0 Supreme ruling lets owners seek compensation for land the state took appeared first on WND.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unveiled a 9-0 ruling setting out a definitive path for people whose property is impacted by government actions, even well-intentioned actions, to claim compensation.
The decision came in DeVillier et al. v Texas where the state of Texas decided to designate a highway, Interstate 10 between Houston and Beaumont, as a flood evacuation route, and so built a high concrete barrier in the median to contain floodwaters.
The problem developed when the barrier worked, and held floodwaters on lands belonging to Richard DeVillier and more than 120 others, damaging that property.
The state rejected any claims for compensation, and that led eventually to the Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The opinion said, "The dispute here arose after the state of Texas took action to use portions of I–10 as a flood evacuation route, installing a roughly 3-foot-tall barrier along the highway median to act as a dam. When subsequent hurricanes and storms brought heavy rainfall, the median barrier performed as intended, keeping the south side of the highway open.
"But it also flooded petitioners’ land to the north, causing significant damage to their property. DeVillier filed suit in Texas state court. He alleged that by building the median barrier and using his property to store stormwater, Texas had effected a taking of his property for which the state must pay just compensation. Other property owners filed similar suits."
Flooding caused by state's barrier
The state claimed the plaintiffs had "no cause of action arising directly under the Takings Clause."
But the Supreme Court held that, "DeVillier and the other property owners should be permitted to pursue their claims under the Takings Clause through the cause of action available under Texas law."
The ruling sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings in accordance with the ruling.
"The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' The court has explained that 'a property owner acquires an irrevocable right to just compensation immediately upon a taking' '[b]ecause of 'the self-executing character' of the Takings Clause 'with respect to compensation.''"
The court said the owners should proceed "through the cause of action available under Texas law."
The Institute for Justice, which worked on behalf of DeVillier, outlined how the problem developed for the landowner, of Winnie, Texas, on the farm his grandfather bought in the 1930s.
WND has reported the state's actions triggered several devastating floods, essentially destroying the property's worth.
"If there is one basic principle in property law, it’s the Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you buy it," explained IJ lawyer Robert McNamara about the case. "The Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case amounts to ‘you pay if you feel like it.’ But the Constitution’s Takings Clause demands more."
The farm almost never had experienced any flooding, then in the early 2000s the Texas Department of Transportation renovated nearby Interstate 10, raising its height, adding two lanes, and installing a concrete barrier in the median. Now, every time the area receives heavy rainfall, Richie’s land turns into a lake," the IJ said.
The result is destroyed corps and dead farm animals.
"When the DeVilliers sought to be paid for the destruction, the state refused. And when the family sued, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that they couldn’t – because Congress has never passed a law allowing citizens to sue states for taking property, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of 'just compensation' was unenforceable,'" the IJ said.
"No American should have to worry that the government will destroy their property and leave them holding the bag," said IJ Chief Counsel Scott Bullock about the dispute.
The landowners' arguments were basic: The state was taking their lands to use for stormwater storage instead of letting it flow, so they were entitled to compensation for that forced taking.
"Texas state law provides a cause of action by which property owners may seek just compensation against the state," Thomas wrote,
For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
The post 9-0 Supreme ruling lets owners seek compensation for land the state took appeared first on WND.