This is a lot more complex than “Paxton lost”. Paxton and Texas rightly won the argument they were making — landowners who have their property taken by the state should first proceed through the state to claim just compensation for a taking.Assuming the state did a taking of private property for public purpose, there was never a question of whether the landowners deserved compensation. Instead it’s just a question of whether they have to follow state statutes and procedures to claim that compensation. Moreover, if the state statute doesn’t provide for just compensation, then the landowners would still have a cause of action under federal law. But they don’t get to go to federal law first. This was the right decision, IMO.
The 5th Circuit held that “the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as ap-
plied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not pro-
vide a right of action for takings claims against a state.”
As a matter of Constitutional law, that’s just dumb. And wrong. And dumbly wrong. The right to sue a state for takings has been long settled, and people do have a right to sue the state for a taking.
What was at issue here was whether the landowners had a private right of action directly under the 5th Amendment versus whether they had to sue Texas for the taking under the provisions and procedures of Texas law.
Paxton was not arguing that the landowners did not have a right to sue for the taking. Paxton was not arguing that the landowners did not deserve compensation if they could prove a taking.
Instead, Paxton was arguing that Texas law specifically provides the mechanism for landowners to sue for a taking and therefore the landowners did not have a right to sue directly in federal court for a taking under the 5th Amendment. As described in the syllabus to the SCOTUS opinion, the SCOTUS held that “The question here concerns the procedural vehicle by which a property owner may seek to vindicate that right.”
Note the phrase “procedural vehicle.” This case was not about a denial of property rights claims, but rather whether the landowners should follow Texas statutes to claim compensation for an alleged taking of Texas property under Texas law by Texas administrative agencies.
As the SCOTUS opinion further states, this would be a different issue if Texas law did not provide any Texas procedure for compensation or if Texas law did not provide for “just compensation” as required by the 5th Amendment.
Paxton won this case. As Justice Thomas opined: “We therefore vacate and remand so that DeVillier’s claims may proceed under Texas’ state-law cause of action.”
Texas never tried to seize property without just compensation. Texas did insist (and won) on the argument that the landowners should have to use the Texas statute and procedures that already existed in order to prove and claim their just compensation from the state.
Articles like this one from Mediaite are irresponsible and stupid. Absolute garbage. Literally any competent attorney could have explained this to the waste of a journalism degree that wrote this article.
Correction - the 5th Circuit opinion holding that there is no direct private right of action against a state that has statutes and procedures to provide just compensation for takings is not what’s dumb. What’s dumb is the proposition that Texas was seeking to take property and then prevent landowners from suing for the taking. All Texas was doing is telling the landowners “hey, we’ve got a statute in place for dealing with this, go through Texas courts first.”
I suspect Institute for Justice may have felt that Texas statutes on just compensation do not adequately compensate. Or that this case was a litigation tactic to increase the payout to the landowners. In the former case, they can still make that claim after the case has been litigated. In the latter case, well...you have to represent your client and if you have a good faith argument go with it. But I think the SCOTUS got this one right as a matter of federalism and state sovereignty.
“DeVillier originally sued in state court, and Texas filed to remove the case to federal court, where it defended against the lawsuit by claiming that the Fifth Amendment didn’t apply to the state because Congress hadn’t passed a law expressly saying it did.”