Posted on 10/27/2023 6:15:09 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
In the 1930s, Richie DeVillier’s grandfather purchased a farm in Winnie, a little town in eastern Texas named after a railroad contractor who prospered.
For nearly a century, the DeVillier family raised cattle and grew crops on the 900-acre property without incident — until the Texas Department of Transportation started a highway project that had serious implications for DeVillier’s land.
In the early 2000s, the state renovated Interstate 10, elevating and broadening the highway and erecting concrete barriers. The construction trapped the DeVillier property, turning his farm into a lake whenever the region experienced heavy rains, as it did in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey.
“The water started to rise on August 28,” DeVillier recalled . “Our home was completely flooded by August 29.”....
In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit punted on the matter, arguing that federal courts have no jurisdiction in takings cases against states. (A "taking" isn't necessarily seizing the property; an action that substantially alters a property is legally defined as a taking in tort law.)
The court didn’t rule against DeVillier. It simply said that Congress never passed a law allowing Americans to sue states for taking their property, so the Fifth Amendment’s property protections do not apply to DeVillier or anyone else.
The court’s reasoning is strange. Not only does the Constitution explicitly state that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … [or] without just compensation,” but the high court weighed in on this issue as recently as 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Why should Congress have to pass a law to “allow” citizens to sue states?
By your reasoning, pretty much every state and local government action would now be a federal issue.
If history is a guideline on such projects, I guarandamntee that federal funds were used on the project.
Regardless, if he doesn’t win this battle, it’s just another brick out of Texas’ foundation and another step to losing it forever to the left.
“ Why should Congress have to pass a law to “allow” citizens to sue states?”
I am not a lawyer, but when I hear of a case dismissed for lack of “standing” it roils me.
“A “taking” isn’t necessarily seizing the property; an action that substantially alters a property is legally defined as a taking in tort law.”
This case is relatively minor, but think about the above. Assuming the case goes well in the Supreme Court, then, for example, if a city imposes rent control, will they compensate the property owners for the lost value of their rental units, since they’re no longer free to charge market rates? The examples are literally endless and could result in government finally getting reigned-in to its original purpose.
(In defense of Texas, that part of I-10 sucked before being reworked...but even so, I’m obviously with this guy.)
There’s some PE somewhere that should lose his engineering license and be sued into bankruptcy over this.
It seems like their trying to solve a constitutional - not federal - issue of whether citizens can take actions like this against the state.
Texas says no.
So, does the 14th amendment "incorporate" the state judiciaries consistently, or just in select cases when government can really stick it to private taxpayers?
The feds will probably now declare it a periodic wetlands and prevent him from doing anything.
I’ve seen that come into play with less.
“turning his farm into a lake whenever the region experienced heavy rains, as it did in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey.”
I’m surprised the EPA didn’t fine him.
Every FReeper needs to buy/read FReeper Bray’s book:
“The Republic of Texas”.
Excellent book and who knows - the plot might be possible to accomplish by freedom loving patriots.
Rehnquist started edging towards this when the court ruled that some of a California town's demands for artwork in exchange for a zoning change were extortionate. But SCOTUS quickly backed-off when they realized the flood of litigation that would ensue if they broadened the takings clause. That may be at work here, too. The Federal judiciary leaps to overturn long settled law as long as it serves leftist policy goals, but in terms of enforcing the actual Constitution they're lazy "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" d-bags.
..........lol, and fyi, I’ve been developing and building IN TEXAS for 50 years! I can tell you that EVERYBODY knows you can’t build something on your property that floods someone elses property. This includes the ditchdigger up to the high and mighty engineer.
The lawyers call it “blackletter law”.
Pure Texas politics here. Somebody, or some entity, with mucho politics (bought politicians) AND MONEY, is having his ox gored ($$$) if Devillier wins. Been there done that!
Five States in the upper mid-west are fighting to protect private land from the folks attempting to use imminent domain to secure private land for a potentially dangerous high pressure CO2 pipeline.
Forty five Q is the part of the US tax code that allows huge financial benefits to the sequestration of CO2. It is no wonder that people are seeking to benefit from something totally wrong in principle. The financial benefit is designed to overcome any desire to apply right and wrong as a standard.
On it.
Don't forget: Marxists do not believe in property rights or the ownership of property.
following....
It would sure as hell be a “federal” issue if you did nothing they didn’t like on that exact spot on the highway. Say the farmer blocked the highway, or found a way to undermine that wall and drain his property across it.
He would suddenly be charged federally as a “terrorist”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.