Decision Alert: Supreme Court Issues Narrow Unanimous Decision in Takings Case

On April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in DeVillier v. Texas that DeVillier and other affected property owners should be permitted to pursue their just compensation claims under the Takings Clause through a cause of action available under Texas law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

As previously summarized in Dykema’s February 2024 edition, Richard DeVillier and others own property along an interstate highway in Texas. Due to an increase in flooding, the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) elevated the highway and installed a concrete median barrier which obstructed natural water flow and led to the flooding of DeVillier’s property. TXDOT continued with the construction and extended the barrier, causing extensive damage to other properties. DeVillier and other property owners filed an inverse condemnation suit in Texas state court asserting claims under the Texas Constitution and U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause seeking just compensation. Upon removal to federal court, Texas moved to dismiss, arguing that the Fifth Amendment does not provide a private cause of action against a state. According to Texas, the only available avenue for a private suit against a state is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 claims, however, are unavailable to the property owners because Texas is not a “person” subject to a suit under Section 1983. The district court rejected Texas’s arguments in favor of the property owners. But the Fifth Circuit vacated that judgment, finding that the Takings Clause does not provide a cause of action for takings claims against states.

In a narrow decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the petitioners adversely affected by the Texas flood evacuation barriers may pursue their legal claims under the specific Texas law that provides an inverse condemnation cause of action for property owners to pursue just compensation under both the state and federal takings clauses against Texas. Because Texas law provides a manner for affected property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause, the Court did not reach whether the Takings Clause itself provides an independent cause of action for a private party to seek just compensation from a state for an unlawful taking of property.

Takeaways

• The Court did not address the question upon which it granted certiorari: whether “a person whose property is taken without compensation [may] seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.” As Justice Thomas noted, the question granted assumed a factual premise not present in this case. Therefore, whether a cause of action may arise under the Takings Clause alone remains open for the Court to consider another day.
• As a practical note based on the procedural history of the case and potential outcome on remand, states like Texas may not be in a position to successfully remove a case from state to federal court and then seek dismissal on the ground that there is no available federal cause of action. Those seeking redress from a state should be wary of such procedural Catch-22s.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, A. Joseph Duffy, IV, or Puja Valera.