JANUARY SALE: Only 25¢ for Unlimited Digital Access!
Act Now |
Photo by: Staff photographer
A group of four dozen ranchers and farmers from Winnie, Texas are at the center of a Supreme Court case that could have far-reaching implications for U.S. property rights.
The property owners from Winnie – a small city about 25 miles west of Beaumont -- allege the state's widening of Interstate 10 created the conditions that allowed their properties to be flooded, reports R.A. Schuetz. As a result, they say Texas took property without compensation in violation of both state and federal constitutional protections, including the Fifth Amendment's taking clause, Schuetz writes.
The Fifth Amendment's takings clause is meant to protect against the government taking private property "for public use without just compensation."
If the Supreme Court decides states can be sued under the Fifth Amendment's taking clause, that could lead to more cases asking federal courts to opine on a slew of state policies. Attorneys have attempted to use the taking clause with varying success in cases touching on rent control, development in wetlands and COVID eviction moratoriums, Schuetz notes.
On the other hand, if the state prevails in the Winnie case, "The basic upshot … will be that states will be entirely in charge of how, when and whether they pay for property they take," said Robert McNamara, an Institute for Justice lawyer who is now arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. We'll be watching to see how the case progresses in the coming weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment