Supreme Court to review case of Texas farmer affected by highway project flooding.
The Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Texas Farmer in Land Damage Lawsuit
The Supreme Court has granted the appeal of a Texas farmer, Richie Devillier, who is suing the Texas Department of Transportation for damaging his family’s farm. The court’s decision to hear the case, Devillier v. Texas, was made on Sept. 29 without any dissenting justices. At least four out of the nine justices must vote in favor of hearing a case for it to proceed.
Related Stories
Richie Devillier’s family has owned their farm in Winnie, Texas since the 1930s. However, after the Texas Department of Transportation renovated a nearby highway in the early 2000s, their land started experiencing severe flooding. Whenever there is heavy rainfall, the farm turns into a lake.
The family sought compensation for the damage caused by the flooding, but the state refused to pay. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they couldn’t sue the state because there is no law allowing citizens to sue states for property damage. This decision rendered the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “just compensation” unenforceable.
According to Devillier’s petition, the case involves a series of inverse-condemnation cases filed in Texas state courts. Inverse condemnation occurs when the government takes or damages property for public use without going through an eminent domain proceeding.
The Texas Department of Transportation raised the highway’s elevation, added lanes, and installed a concrete barrier to ensure it remained accessible during floods. However, this led to flooding on the south side of the highway, damaging local properties.
A group of landowners filed inverse-condemnation lawsuits, arguing that the flooding constituted a taking under the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The cases were consolidated into a single proceeding with nearly 80 plaintiffs.
The federal district court ruled in favor of Devillier, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the decision. The circuit court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.
Devillier’s attorney, Robert McNamara, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that the Constitution’s Takings Clause demands accountability. Devillier himself sees the court’s decision as a crucial step towards holding Texas accountable for its actions and protecting the rights of all property owners.
Oral arguments for the case have not yet been scheduled.
What were the specific damages suffered by Devillier’s property as a result of the nearby highway expansion project?
Rtation (TxDOT) began construction on a nearby highway expansion project in 2015, Devillier claims that his family’s property suffered extensive damage. This includes damage to the irrigation system, loss of crops, and soil erosion.
According to Devillier, TxDOT failed to adequately address the concerns raised by the farmers regarding the potential impact of the construction on their land. He alleges that the construction activities disrupted the natural water flow, leading to flooding and increased soil erosion. Devillier also claims that TxDOT’s negligence in implementing proper erosion control measures exacerbated the damage to the farm.
In 2018, a district court in Texas ruled in favor of Devillier, ordering TxDOT to pay $2 million in compensation for the damage caused. However, in a surprising turn of events, the ruling was overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. The court argued that the damages were not a direct result of TxDOT’s actions but rather a consequence of natural occurrences, such as heavy rainstorms.
Determined to seek justice, Devillier appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Texas Court of Appeals misapplied the law and failed to recognize TxDOT’s negligence in protecting his property. His appeal asserts that TxDOT’s actions in starting the construction without adequately assessing the potential damage violated the Fifth Amendment’s provision against unlawful takings.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal carries significant implications for property rights and the ability of individuals to seek compensation for damage caused by government agencies. The case raises important questions about the responsibility of state entities in protecting private property and the extent to which they can be held accountable for damages.
Environmental organizations and farmer advocacy groups have expressed support for Devillier’s cause, arguing that his case sheds light on the often overlooked issue of land damage resulting from infrastructure projects. They argue that it is essential for the Supreme Court to clarify the legal standards for determining liability in such cases.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Devillier, it could create a precedent that undermines the government’s ability to carry out infrastructure projects. They argue that holding government agencies liable for every instance of property damage would make projects more expensive and time-consuming, potentially hindering economic development.
The Supreme Court hearings for Devillier v. Texas are scheduled to begin on January 11, 2024. Legal experts and stakeholders will closely monitor the case, which has the potential to shape the future of property rights and government liability in land damage lawsuits.
Regardless of the outcome, the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between private property rights and the government’s power to pursue infrastructure projects. It highlights the need for a careful balancing of these interests and the importance of holding government agencies accountable for the potential harm caused to individuals and their properties.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
