FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a resounding win for landowners in Texas, ruling unanimously on Tuesday in a pivotal case that landowners can pursue their takings claim under state law. However, the court refrained from addressing a broader question concerning the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.

High Court Sides With Texas Landowners In Takings Dispute : Favorable Verdict

In the case of Devillier v. Texas, the dispute centered on a barrier erected by the state along sections of Interstate 10. Subsequent storms led to flooding of land adjacent to the interstate due to the barriers. Plaintiffs argued that Texas violated the Fifth Amendment by taking their property without just compensation.

The 9-0 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas delivering the opinion, emphasized the right of property owners to pursue claims under Texas law. Justice Thomas stated, "On remand, 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."

Landowners' Plight

Over 100 landowners contended that Texas effectively seized their farms, ranches, and homes when the state's Department of Transportation installed traffic barriers. These barriers diverted floodwaters, transforming land into a "sprawling stormwater-detention pond" after tropical storms.

The landowners asserted their entitlement to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, asserting their right to sue for the funds.

High Court Sides With Texas Landowners In Takings Dispute : Legal Maneuvering

While the ruling offers guidance for the Devillier plaintiffs to seek compensation under the federal takings clause, it sidesteps a broader question. Initially filed in state court, Texas removed the case to federal court. A federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Fifth Circuit later overturned this decision.

Plaintiffs argued that the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to seek compensation under the Constitution, irrespective of statutory rights. However, the high court did not address this argument, leaving the question open for future deliberation.

Legal Implications

Kevin King of Covington & Burling LLP noted, "DeVillier is an exceptionally narrow decision," clarifying that it hinges on Texas law providing a cause of action to enforce the federal takings clause. The unresolved question of whether the takings clause itself provides a 'self-executing' cause of action awaits resolution in future cases.

High Court Sides With Texas Landowners In Takings Dispute : Representation

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert McNamara, Christie Hebert, Andrew H. Ward, Suranjan Sen of the Institute for Justice, Daniel Charest, Larry Vincent of Burns Charest LLP, and Charles Irvine of Irvine & Conner PLLC. Lanora Christine Pettit of the Office of the Texas Attorney General represents the defendant.