DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)
Richard DeVillier and over 120 other property owners in Texas alleged that the State of Texas had taken their property for stormwater storage without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state had installed a barrier along a highway median to prevent stormwater from covering the road, which resulted in flooding on the petitioners' land during heavy rainfall. DeVillier argued that the Takings Clause itself authorized him to bring suit, even if the legislature had not affirmatively provided a cause of action.
The District Court denied Texas' motion to dismiss the federal inverse-condemnation claim, concluding that a property owner may sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that Texas law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause. Therefore, DeVillier's claims may proceed under Texas' state-law cause of action. The Court did not resolve the question of whether a property owner may sue for just compensation directly under the Takings Clause, as it was not necessary to do so in this case.
The Supreme Court declined to address whether a property owner has a cause of action arising directly from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DEVILLIER et al. v. TEXAS
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit
No. 22–913. Argued January 16, 2024—Decided April 16, 2024
Richard DeVillier and more than 120 other petitioners own property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 between Houston and Beaumont, Texas. 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. Texas removed the cases to federal court, where they were consolidated into a single proceeding with one operative complaint. The operative complaint includes inverse- condemnation claims under both the Texas Constitution and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As relevant, Texas moved to dismiss the federal inverse-condemnation claim, arguing that a plaintiff has no cause of action arising directly under the Takings Clause. The District Court denied Texas’ motion, concluding that a property owner may sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding “that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.” 53 F. 4th 904 (per curiam).
Held: 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 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.’ ” Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 192 (quoting First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315). The question here concerns the procedural vehicle by which a property owner may seek to vindicate that right. Constitutional rights do not typically come with a built-in cause of action to allow for private enforcement in courts, see Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 490–491, and so they are asserted offensively pursuant to an independent cause of action designed for that purpose, see, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §1983. DeVillier relies on First English and other cases to argue that the Takings Clause creates by its own force a cause of action authorizing suits for just compensation. But those cases do not directly confront whether the Takings Clause provides a cause of action. It would be imprudent to decide that question without first establishing the premise in the question presented that no other cause of action exists to vindicate the property owner’s rights under the Takings Clause. Texas state law does provide an inverse-condemnation cause of action by which property owners may seek just compensation against the State based on both the Texas Constitution and the Takings Clause. This case therefore does not present the circumstance in which a property owner has no cause of action to seek just compensation. The Court therefore remands so that DeVillier and the other property owners may proceed through the cause of action available under Texas law. Pp. 4–7.
53 F. 4th 904, vacated and remanded.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Argued. For petitioners: Robert J. McNamara, Arlington, Va. For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
Reply of Richard Devillier, et al. submitted. |
Reply of petitioners Richard Devillier, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Minnesota, Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia submitted. |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Minnesota, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of State of Texas submitted. |
Brief of State of Texas not accepted for filing. (December 13, 2023 - Corrected electronic documents submitted.) |
Brief for Respondent of State of Texas submitted. |
Brief of Texas not accepted for filing. (December 13, 2023 - Corrected electronic documents submitted.) |
Brief of respondent Texas (DEC. 19, 2023) filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED |
Record received from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The record is electronic and is available with the Clerk. |
Amicus brief of Professor Carlos M. Vázquez submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors James W. Ely, Jr., and Julia Mahoney and The Buckeye Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professor Ernest A. Young submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. |
Amicus brief of National Association of Realtors®, American Property Owners Alliance, and Texas Realtors® submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Ernest A. Young filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Association of Realtors®, American Property Owners Alliance, and Texas Realtors® filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors James W. Ely, Jr., et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Carlos M. Vázquez filed. |
Amicus brief of American Farm Bureau Federation submitted. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, January 16, 2024. |
Amicus brief of Ilya Somin and Cato Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Farm Bureau Federation not accepted for filing. (Duplicate submission - November 21, 2023) |
Amicus brief of American Farm Bureau Federation submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ilya Somin, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of American Farm Bureau Federation not accepted for filing. (Dupilicate submission) (November 21, 2023) |
Brief of Richard Devillier, et al. submitted. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief of petitioners Richard Devillier, et al. filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023. |
Reply of petitioners Richard Devillier, et al. filed. |
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ilya Somin and Cato Institute filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 9, 2023. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 10, 2023 to June 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk. |
Response Requested. (Due May 10, 2023) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023. |
Waiver of right of respondent Texas to respond filed. |
Supplemental brief of petitioners Richard Devillier, et al. filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 19, 2023) |