DeVillier v. Texas
Headline: Court allows Texas landowners harmed by a highway median to pursue state-law takings claims, vacates the federal appeals court ruling, and sends the cases back to proceed under Texas compensation law.
Holding: The Court held that because Texas provides a state-law way to get compensation when government uses private land for public purposes, the owners must pursue their federal takings claims under Texas law and the case is sent back.
- Allows Texas landowners to pursue compensation under Texas law for flooding caused by median barriers.
- Vacates the appeals court decision and sends cases back to proceed under Texas law.
- Does not decide whether the Constitution alone creates a federal cause of action.
Summary
Background
Richard DeVillier and more than 120 other people own land north of Interstate 10 between Houston and Beaumont, Texas. The State built a roughly three-foot barrier in the highway median to keep the south side of the road clear during evacuations. In heavy storms, the barrier held back water, protecting the south side but flooding the owners’ land to the north. Flooding from Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019 allegedly displaced residents and damaged homes, businesses, crops, livestock, and family property. The owners sued in Texas state court claiming their land was taken and sought compensation; Texas removed and the cases were consolidated in federal court.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment itself creates a federal cause of action that lets a person sue a State directly for compensation. The Court explained that constitutional rights do not usually come with their own private lawsuit procedure and that many takings cases historically proceeded under state law or equitable remedies. Because Texas has an inverse-condemnation cause of action under its own law that lets owners seek compensation for takings, the Court declined to decide whether the Constitution alone creates a federal suit and instead vacated the appeals court’s judgment.
Real world impact
The Supreme Court sent the cases back so the property owners can pursue their claims through the state-law procedure in Texas that allows recovery for takings. The ruling does not resolve whether the Takings Clause by itself creates a federal damages claim, and the owners may amend their complaint in state court as Texas indicated it would not oppose such an amendment.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?