How Strong Is The Takings Clause, Really?

// 944796

When people usually talk about the Fifth Amendment, they do so in the context of criminal hearings. But there’s more to the Fifth than being a legendary Chappelle bit. The takings clause is kinda like the Third Amendment in that people forget how important of  a constitutional protection it is right up until the state starts having its way with your property. A taking, constructive or otherwise, happens when the government either grabs or so meddles with that they basically grab your stuff up. If and when that happens, they’re supposed to pay you justly. It is easy when there is a cut and dry example like Uncle Sam grabbing your land for personal use. But what about when fixing a highway has collateral damage? From the ABA Journal:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether Texas landowners can sue the state under the takings clause for flooding caused by highway reconstruction even when a statute has not authorized lawsuits.

InterAction+ Brings Power Of CRM Software To Law Firms Of All Sizes Sponsored InterAction+ Brings Power Of CRM Software To Law Firms Of All Sizes The only legal CRM with exclusive content from LexisNexis®. From LexisNexis® InterAction+™  

To sue a state, said state generally has to grant consent to sue it first. State sovereign immunity, blah blah blah. But here, that would have the effect of trumping a constitutional protection. Don’t you just love when legal norms are in conflict?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear four consolidated cases that argue the takings clause is “self-executing,” meaning the landowners can sue directly under the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states by 14th Amendment.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

The redirected water claimed “countless crops and killed several animals.” This case could have just as easily been about cars or any other property destroyed by government acts — negligent or otherwise.

If you’ve been wanting to read about interesting constitutional issues that don’t involve the Supreme Court not having a binding ethics code, get your fix with Devillier v. Texas.

Sponsored Pickleball, Pancakes, and PhDs – Balancing Law And Life Sponsored Pickleball, Pancakes, and PhDs – Balancing Law And Life Think you need to sacrifice one thing for the other? Think again. From Peerpoint   InterAction+ Brings Power Of CRM Software To Law Firms Of All Sizes Sponsored InterAction+ Brings Power Of CRM Software To Law Firms Of All Sizes The only legal CRM with exclusive content from LexisNexis®. From LexisNexis® InterAction+™   Announcing Ontra Atlas, Modern Entity Management Built for Private Equity Sponsored Announcing Ontra Atlas, Modern Entity Management Built for Private Equity Ontra Atlas extends Ontra’s Legal Operating System, an AI-enabled platform that digitally transforms critical legal workflows. From Ontra   Announcing Ontra Atlas, Modern Entity Management Built for Private Equity Sponsored Announcing Ontra Atlas, Modern Entity Management Built for Private Equity Ontra Atlas extends Ontra’s Legal Operating System, an AI-enabled platform that digitally transforms critical legal workflows. From Ontra  

5th Circuit Takings Ruling That Breaks ‘Pottery Barn rule’ Will Be Reviewed By US Supreme Court [ABA Journal]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); }); Sponsored Beyond the Billable Hours: Finding Purpose in Your In-House Role Sponsored Beyond the Billable Hours: Finding Purpose in Your In-House Role Whether you're a seasoned attorney looking to rekindle your passion or a new professional navigating the challenges of the legal world, join us on October… From Axiom and Above The Law   The Comprehensive Guide To AI For Private Equity Sponsored The Comprehensive Guide To AI For Private Equity Private equity firms need purpose-built legal AI to get real results. Ontra’s guide explores the risks of generic AI and how to evaluate AI vendors. From Ontra   Topics

Courts, Fifth Amendment, Flooding, Takings Clause, Texas


Introducing Jobbguru: Your Gateway to Career Success

The ultimate job platform is designed to connect job seekers with their dream career opportunities. Whether you're a recent graduate, a seasoned professional, or someone seeking a career change, Jobbguru provides you with the tools and resources to navigate the job market with ease. 

Take the next step in your career with Jobbguru:

Don't let the perfect job opportunity pass you by. Join Jobbguru today and unlock a world of career possibilities. Start your journey towards professional success and discover your dream job with Jobbguru.

Originally posted on: https://abovethelaw.com/2023/10/how-strong-is-the-takings-clause-really/