Supreme Court backs ranchers in suit over flooding
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that four dozen Winnie-area ranchers and other property owners can continue to sue Texas for compensation for flooding damages.
The suit alleges a state project widening Interstate 10 caused the flooding that killed animals and left homes and land under feet of water in Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Storm Imelda.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to vacate a lower court’s decision dismissing the case. The ruling now allows the case to be tried and means that in Texas, property owner rights are protected by both the state and federal constitutions.
The case alleges that when the state widened I-10 between Houston and Beaumont from two lanes in either direction to three, a 3-foot-high concrete barrier separating the traffic hurtling east and west was erected “to act as a dam.” Water in the area drains south toward the Gulf; after Tropical Storm Imelda poured down on the region, floodwaters the height of the barrier covered the Winnie area as far as the eye could see to the north while the lanes south of the barrier remained comparatively dry, allowing for transportation.
Lawyers for the property owners argued that the flooded lands constituted a violation of both the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment’s takings clause protects against the government taking private property “for public use without just compensation.”
Texas had moved for the case to be heard in federal court, then said there were no grounds for the property owners to bring a case against a state in federal court. Instead, the state’s lawyers said an act of Congress would be necessary to give
plaintiffs grounds to sue in federal court. While laws passed in the 1800s explicitly allow people to sue local jurisdictions for taking private property without just compensation, there is no law that mentions such cases against states, the state argues. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, justices pushed back on this logic.
“This seems to me like a totally made-up case because they did exactly what they had to do under Texas law,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “It’s almost a bait and switch.”
Texas lawyers protested and said that state law actually did allow suits under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruling says in that case, the suit should be heard.
Robert McNamara, an Institute for Justice lawyer who argued the case on behalf of the Winnie-area property owners, called that outcome a “victory” that increased property rights protections in Texas. Texans can now sue under both the state and federal constitutions’ takings clauses.
“If you have access to both constitutions, whichever one is most protective rules,” he said.
The Texas Department of Transportation said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The decision is significant because whether or not a state action is a taking that merits compensation has been broadly interpreted. Lawyers have argued that the takings clause applies to a range of regulations, including rent control, COVID eviction moratoriums and limits on developing wetlands, with varying success. In Texas, it’s clear federal courts can weigh in on a broad swath of state policies.
However, the court’s ruling voiding the court of appeal’s decision dodged a larger question that would provide similar clarity in all states: whether a law has to be in place to allow a suit under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
“This case does not require us to resolve that question,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.
Nonetheless, Richie DeVillier, one of the cattle ranchers in the suit, was happy. In the first flood, he lost tractors, air compressors, welding machines, over 60 head of cattle, 100 calves and childhood photos of his son. In the second, he resolved to bring about change.
When he heard the Supreme Court’s decision, he felt good, he said, although he had never doubted how the case would turn out.
“Such a colossal waste of time and resources to get to this point,” he said. “This is our taxpayer money that they’re using.”