### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 20409

CAROL S EVERA NCE P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. JE R R YP A T T E R S O N , C om m i ssi on er of t h e T exas G en eralL an d O f f i ce; G R E G A B B O T T , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l fo r th e S ta te o f T e x a s ; K U R T S I ST R U N K , D i st r i c t A t t or ney f ort he C ount y o f

G al ves t on, Texas D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d W IE N E R an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui t Ju dg es. E D ITH H

. JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: C a rol Se ve ra n ce fi l ed su i t ag a i n st T ex a s A ttorn ey G en era lG reg A b b ott, C om m i ssi on er of

the T exas G en eralL an d O f f i ce Jerr y P att erson, an d G al vest on Count y D i s t r i c t At t o r ne y K ur t Si s t r u n k (t h e “ Of f i c i a l s ” ) , s e e k i ng de c l ar at o r y and i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

t o pr even t them f

r o m e nf o r c i ng a pub l i c e as e m e nt und e r t he T e x a s O p e n B e a c h e s A c t, T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 6 1 .0 1 1 (a ) etse q . S everan ce c on t en ds t h at because t h e beach bou n da ry of h er p ropert y m i grated l andw ar d af

t erH urr i c ane Ri t a, t aki ng i n l and not pre vi ous l y e ncum ber ed bya pub l i c a c c e s s e as e m e nt , t he e nf o r c e m e nt o f

t he e as e m e nt o n he r b e ac hf r o nt pr o pe r t i e s c o nst i t u t es a se i z ur e i n v i o l at i o n o f t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt a nd a United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 20409

Notwithsta ndin g the hyperbo lic an d u nsuppo rted asserti ons in Part Iof the dissent 1 (“Co ntext”), th e ju dge s of the court ende avor not t o de cide appeals b ased on who the liti gants are, who their l awye rs ar e, or what we may believe their motives to be. Whe ther that rul e i s observe d inli ght of Part Iof the dissent, however, the reade r must determine. 2 t ak i n g wi t h o u t j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Fi f t h Am e n d m e n t
. The d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d th e a c tio n , ru lin gth a t S e v e r a n c e fa ile d to s ta te a cla im f o r r e l i e f b e c aus e Te xa s l aw r e c o gni z e s a “ r o l l i ng” b e ac hf r o nt e as e m e nt ; t hi s t yp e o f e as e m e nt pr e da t e d Se ve r anc e ’ s p ur c has e o f he r b e ac hf

r o nt pr o pe r t i e s ; t he St at e m aye nf

o r c e t he e as e m e nt as nat ur alc hang e s o c c ur i n i t s l o c at i o n; a nd n o c o n stitu tion a l vio la tion re su lts fro m a n u n c o m p e n s a t e d c h a n g e in th e e a s e m e n t ’s l o c at i o n o n Se ve r anc e ’ s pr o pe r t y. W e a f f i r m di s m i s s alo f

t he t ak i ngs c l ai m a nd cert i f y st ate l aw i ssues t o t h e T exas S u prem e court i n regard to th e c lai m of
u n reasona bl e sei zure. 1 I. T o cl ari f

y t h e const i t u t i on al qu est i on s t h i s case presents, a bri ef sketc h of T ex a s’ s p rop erty l a w as itrelates to th e S tate’ s co a s ta l a r e a s i s n ece ssa ry . In L u ttes v
. S ta te , th e T ex a s S u p rem e C ou rt ru l ed for th e fi rst ti m e th a t t h e S tate
o w n e d o n ly t h e c o a s ta l la n d s e a w a r d o f th e m e a n h ig h tid e , o r th e “w e t b e a c h .” 324 S. W

. 2d 167 , 187 ( T ex. 195 8)

. O n e year l ater , t h e T exas l egi sl ature ena ct ed th e O p e n B e a c h e s A c t (“ O B A ”), T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 6 1
. 0 1 1 ( a )

. T h e OBA pro vi des t hat i f t he p ub l i c ha s a c q ui r e d a r i g ht o f us e o r e a s e m e nt t o o r ove r an area by p resc ri pti on , ded i cat i on , or h as retai n ed a ri gh t by vi rt u e of c o nt i nuo us r i ghti n t he publ i c , t he pub l i c s hal lha ve t he f r e e a nd unr e s t r i c t e d r i ghto f

i ngr e s s a nd e gr e s s t o t he l ar ge r a r e a e xt e ndi ng f rom t h e l i n e of

m ean l ow t i de to t h e l i n e of vegetat i on borderi n g on t h e G u l f

of M exi co [ i

. e. b o th th e “w e t b e a ch ” a n d “d ry b e a ch ”]. Id

. T o enfor ce t h e O B A , vari ou s s t ate an d l ocaloff i ci al s m ay seek d ecl arator y or i nj u n ct i ve rel i ef, i n cl u di n g orders t o rem ove “ an y i m provem en t , m ai n t en an ce,N o. 07- 20409

I n 1985, t he l egislature amen ded th e OBA to r equire disclo sures to po tential 2 beachfro nt property owners of th e pr esenc e o f a public acce ss ease ment over the public beach andt he e ns uin g OBA conse que nces. Act 1 985 , 69 th Leg ., C h. 3 50, § 1 eff. Au gu st 26 , 19 85. Th e Offici als do not c onte nd that th e di sclosures alon e affectedS ev er an ce’s rights b ut only thatthey pro vidednotic e of theStat e’s pos itio n underthe OBA. 3 o b s tr u cti on , b a rrier, or othe r en croa ch m en t on a p u b l i c b ea ch

. . . .” I d. § 61. 018 ( a)

. A l an dow n er m ay not excl u de the pu bl i c f rom a beach covered b y th e O B A

. I

d. § 6 1 .01 4 (b ). Fol l ow i ng pass age of t he O B A , Texas c our t s have f ound t hat t he publ i c has acqu i red easem en t s by prescr i pti on or i m pl i ed d edi cat i on or custom on the dry b e a c h a lo n g p o r tio n s o f th e T e x a s G u lf C o a s t. See , e . g. , Se away Co. v . At t ’ y G e n. , 3 7 5 S .W .2 d 9 2 3 , 9 3 6 -3 7 ( T e x .C iv .A p p .— H o u s to n 1 9 6 4 , w r it r e f’d n .r.e .); Mat c ha
v. Matt ox, 7 1 1 S .W .2d 9 5 , 1 0 1 (T e x . C iv. A p p .— A u stin 1 9 8 6 , w rit d e n ied ); F ein m a n v. S ta te , 717 S. W

. 2d 106, 113 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1s t D i st
. ] 1986,
w r i t r e f ’ d n. r . e . )

. Al t ho ugh t he O BA i s si l en t a bo ut t he e f fe c t o f e r o s i o n o n t he b o u n d a r ie s of pu b l i c be a ch fron t eas em en ts, T ex a s cou rts h a ve also h eld th a t,
o nc e a n e as e m e nt i s e s t ab l i s he d, it s b o unda r i e s s hi f t w i t h t he v e ge t at i o n l i ne a n d th e lin e o f m e a n lo w tid e . Fe i nm an , 7 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 1 1 0 -1 1
. U n d e r th is

“ rol l i n g easem en t doct ri n e, ” t h e State i s not requ i red to e st abli sh a n ew e as e m e nt v i a pr e s c r i pt i o n, de di c at i o n o r c o nt i nuous r i ghta s t he s ho r e l i ne
m ig r a te s la n d w a r d

. I d. M i grati on of

t h e shorel i n e f

requ en t l y accom pa n i es h u rri can es ort ropi calst orm s. 2 II. Car o lSe ve r anc e , a Ca l i forni a r e s i de nt , pur c has e d t w o b e ac hf r o nt properti es al on g B erm u da B each D ri ve an d K en n edy D ri ve on W estG al vest on I sl and i n A pri l2005. Each par c elw as i m pro ved w i t h a s i ngl e- fam i l y hom e t hat S everan ce h as u sed as rental properti es. N o easem en t ha s ever been est abli shed
on eit h er p a rcel via p resc ri p ti on , i m p l i ed de d ic a ti on , or con ti n u ou s ri gh t.N o. 07- 20409

The Official s assertth at bothof Sev er ance’s pro pertie s were on an offici al list, 3 publishe d in 199 9, inc luding over 100 homes that were “ seaward of th e vegetation lin e” and hence “ont he public b eachea sement.” Furth er, S everance r eceive d a notice wh en she purch ased the properties warningth at structures e xi sting seaward o f th e vegetation lin e are subj ec t toOBA

r em ov al lawsuit s b yth e St ateo f T ex a s. 4 H ow eve r , i n 1975, t he St at e o bt ai ned a j udgm ent i n anot her c as e t hat an e as e m e nt e xi s t e d o n a s t r i p o f b e ac h s e awar d o f

Se ve r anc e ’ s l and

. Th e par t i es di sa gr ee as t o w het her an y partof Seve r ance ’ s pro per t i es w as su b j ect to a ro l l i n g e a sem en t bef ore S e v e r a n c e p u r c h a s e d th e p r o p e r tie s . It is 3
u n d i s p u te d th a t a fte r th e p u r c h a s e e r o s io n ca u s e d b y H u r r ic a n e R ita in Sept em ber2005 shi f t ed t he ve get at i on l i ne far t her l andw ar d, c ausi ng a l ar ge segm en t of

Sev eran ce’ s propert i es, i n cl u di n g both h om es, t o be l ocat ed on t h e dry beach

. O n Ju n e 7, 2 0 0 6 , a tem porary m orat ori u m on the rem oval of hou ses l ocat ed on t h e pu bl i c beach expi red, an d t h e C om m i ssi on er i n f orm ed S everan ce t h at her hou ses w ere s u bj ectt o a rem oval order at an y t i m e. Th e State of fered S e v e r a n c e a p p r o x i ma t e l y $4 0 , 0 0 0 a s s i s t a n c e t o r e l o c a t e o r r e mo v e t h e t wo h ou ses. Sh e ref

u sed t h e of

fer. S everan ce prom ptl y f i l ed thi s s u i t f

or decl aratory a n d inj u n ct i ve rel i ef ag ai ns t t he O f

f i c i al s . She a l l e ge d t hate n forcem en t o f t he r o l l i ng e as e m e nt p u rsu a n t t o th e O B Aw ou ld e ff ect an i l l eg a lseizu re u n d er th e F ou rth Am e ndm e nt a nd a n i m pe r m i s s i bl e t ak i ng w i t ho ut j us t co m pe ns at i o n unde r t he F i f t h A m en dm en t
. Sh e al so al l eged t h at t h e e n for cem en t w ou l d vi ol ate her
s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s rig h ts
. T h e S ta te m o v e d to d is m is s u n d e r F e d e r a l R u le
o f Ci v i lPr o c e d ur e 1 2 (b ) ( 1 ) a nd 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) , a r g ui ngt ha t h e r c o ns t i t ut i onal ch a l l en ge s w ere ba rred on j u ri sd i cti on a l gr ou n d s, i n cl u d i n g so ve reign i m m u n i ty
an d ri pen ess, an d w ere i n an y even t m eri t l ess. Af t e r de t e r m i ni ng t hatt he O f f i ci al s w e r e no t i m m une f r o m s ui t , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t dr e w a di s t i nc t i o n b e t w e e n Se ve r anc e ’ s c hal l e nge s t o ( a) t he O f f i c i al s ’a bi l i t y t o b r i ng a f ut ur e ac t i o n t o have herhom e s re m o ve d un de r t heN o. 07- 20409

T o th e extent that Severance brou ght a ge neraliz ed “faci al” challe nge in the distric t 4 court, sheh as aban done d th at challe nge o n appeal a s well

. 5 O B A an d (b ) th e im p ositi on of th e roll i n g e a sem en t i n ge n era l , w h i ch pr ev en ts Se ve r anc e f

r o m e xc l udi ng o t he r s o n t he dr y be ac h por t i o n of herpr o pe r t i e s . The di st ri c t c o ur t di s m i s s e d bo t h c hal l e nge s , f i ndi ng t he ho us e r e m o va l c l ai m s not ri pe an d the rol l i n g easem en t cl ai m s “ argu ably r i pe” bu t d ef i ci en t on the m eri t s. A s w as noted at t h e outset , t h e di st ri ctcourt h e ld th a t S everan ce c ou l d n ot
a s s e r t a c la im fo r v io la t io n o f s t a t e o r c o n s t it u t io n a l la w a r is in gfr o m th e S t a t e ’s
en f orcem en t of

a rol l i n g pu bl i c beachfr on t acces s easem en t on h er propert i es. Sever ance t i m el y f

i l ed t hi s appeal

. She has abandoned her s ubst ant i ve due pr oc es s c hal l enge, and d oe s not c ont es t t he di sm i ss alof herhouse r em oval cl ai m s. O n app eal , she assert s t h at, as app l i ed t o h er p ropert i es, t h e m i grati on

4
o f t h e r o l l i n ge a s e me n t w i t h o u t a f i n d i n g o f p r e s c r i p t i o n , d e d i c a t i o n o r c u s t o m, an d w i t h ou t com pen sati on , ef fect s an u n consti t u t i on al t ak i n g an d sei zure. III . B ef ore r each i n g S everan ce’ s argum en t s on t h e m eri t s, w e m u stconsi der t he O f f i c i al s ’c o nt e nt i o n t hathe r s ui t i s b ar r e d o n j ur i s di c t i o nal g round s . The O f f i ci al s m ai n t ai n tha t soverei gn im m u n i t y precl u des t h e sui t , t h at Severan ce l acks st an di n g t o pu rsue her cl ai m s, a n d t h at h er cl ai m s are u n ri pe. W e revi ew t h e i ssue of

E l even t h A m en dm en t i m m u n i t y , li k e ot h er j u ri sdi ct i on al i ssues, de no vo . Uni t e d St a t e s e x r e l

. Ba r r o n v . De l o i t t e & Tou c he , 381 F. 3d 438, 439 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A . S o v e re ig n Im m u n ity T h e O f f i c i al s c on t en d that E l even t h A m en dm en t soverei gn i m m u n i t y bars S e v e r a n c e ’ s s u it. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is a g r e e d , h o ld in gth a t t h e s u it fit w i th in Ex Par t e You ng , w h ich a ll o w s s u its a g a in st s ta te officia ls for p ro sp e ctiv e re li e f. S ee 2 0 9 U .S

. 1 2 3 , 2 8 S

. C t. 4 4 1 (19 0 8 ).N o. 07- 20409

6 Th e O f f i c i al s do notdi sput e t hat Seve r ance i s se eki ng pr os pec t i ve e qui t ab l e r e l i e f

. R at he r , r e l yi ng o n t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Coe ur d’ Al e ne a nd t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Mau ro , t h ey argu e t h at t h e Ex Par t e You ng
e x c e p tio n is in a p p lic a b le

. S ee I daho v . Coe urd’

Al e ne , 52 1 U

. S

. 26 1 , 1 1 7 S

. C t. 2 0 2 8 (1 9 9 7 ); Joh n G

. & Mari e Ste l l a K enedy Mem ’lF

ou n d

. v. Mau ro , 21 F. 3d 667 ( 5t h Ci r . 199 4)

. I n Coe urd’ Al e ne , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t a n I n d ia n T r ib e ’s
s ui t w as b ar r e d b y t he El e ve nt h Am e ndm e nt b e c aus e t he T r i be ’ s c l ai m s w e r e t he

“ f u n ct i on al equ i valent of qu i et t i t l e i n t h at s u bstanti al l y al l ben ef i t s of
ow ner shi p and c ont r olw oul d s hi f t f r om the St at e t o t he Tribe” s houl d t he Tribe preva i l

. 521 U

. S

. at 282 , 117 S. C t
. at 204 0. T h e C ou rth el d that “ [ u ] n der t h ese pa rt i cul ar an d s peci al ci rcum st an ces, ” t h e Ex Par t e You nge xc ep ti on to E l ev en th A m e n d m e n t s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity d id n o t a p p ly

. I d. at287, 117 S. C t
. at2042- 43. Mau ro l i kew i se aros e f rom a qu i et t i t l e act i on i n w h i ch the pa rt i es di spu t ed
ow ner shi p of

t he pr ope r t y. 21 F. 3d at671- 72. In contr ast t o Coe urd’ Al e ne a nd Mau ro , Se ve r anc e ’ s s ui t i s no t t he fun cti on a leq u i va l en t of a qu i et-t i tl e acti on : T i tl e to th e p rop erties at i ssu e res ts
w i t h Sev eran ce, not t h e State. Th e O ffi ci al s do not c l ai m t i t l e, nor coul d they
u n d e r th e O B A

. S ee T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 61. 023 ( O B A “ shal lnotbe
c o ns t r ue d a s a f

fe c t i ng i n a ny w ayt he t i t l e o f t he o w ne r s o f l anda dj ac e nt t o a ny s t at e - o w ne d b e ac h b o r de r i ng o n t he s e awar d s ho r e o f t he G ul f

of M e xi c o ” )

. The i ss ue i s w het her t he St at e m a y con st i t ut i onal l y i m pos e a n eas em ent , oran en cu m b ra nce , on herfee s i m pl e e st at e. Thu s, t he “ par t i c ul ar and s pec i al circ u m sta n ce s” o f Coe urd’ Al e ne a nd Mau ro a r e n o t p r e s e n t in th is ca s e . S ee C oeur d’ A l ene, 5 2 1 U .S

. a t 2 8 7 , 1 1 7 S . C t. a t 2 0 4 2 -4 3
. Ex Par t e You ngapp l i es, and Sever ance ’ s sui t i s not bar r ed bys ove r ei gn i m m uni t y. B. St andi ng The O f f i ci al s c o nt e nd t hatSe ve r anc e l ac ks s t and i ng be c aus e a ny t ak i ng o r s e iz u r e to o k p la c e b e fo r e s h e a c q u ir e d t h e p r o p e r tie s a t is s u e . T h e O ffic ia lsN o. 07- 20409

Th e partie s a gre e th at if th e i mp os itio nof th e e a se me nt ef fe ctu ate s a taki n g , iti s a 5 phy sical taki n g . See Nollan v. Cal. Coastal C omm’n , 483 U.S. 825 , 832 , 107S. Ct. 314 1, 3 146 (1 9 8 7); Kaiser Aetna v. U nited States , 4 4 4U .S

. 1 6 4 , 1 7 9 -8 0 , 1 0 0S

. C t. 3 8 3 , 3 9 3( 1 9 7 9).

7 as s e r t , a nd Se ve r anc e di s put e s , t hatt he e as e m e nt a t t ac he d t o he r pr o pe r t i e s no l a t e r t h a n 1 9 9 9 , w e l lb e f o r e s h e b o u g h t t h e m. In t h e case of

an al l eged ph ysi calt ak i n g, l i ke thi s one, “ an y aw ard goes 5 t o t he o w ne r at t he t i m e o f t he t ak i ng, and [ ] t he r i ght t o c o m pensati on i s not p a sse d to a su b seq u en t pu rch a ser.” Pal azz o l o v . R h od e I sl and , 533 U

. S. 606, 628 , 1 21 S

. C t
. 2 448 , 2 463 (2001 )

. H ow ever, ev en if the easem en t ha d att ach ed t o s o m e po r t i o n o f

Se ve r anc e ’ s p r o p e r t i e s b e f o r e t he pur c has e , t he v e ge t at i o n l i ne shi f t ed far t her i nl and af t ert he purc hase

. Becaus e t he St at e s ee ks t o i m pos e a n easem en t on a d i f

ferent ( an d l arger) segm en t of her properti es t h an w as covered at t he t i m e o f

herpurc hase , Seve r ance has suf fer ed an i nj ury di st i nctf r om t hat of t h e previ ou s ow n er. In argu i n g ot h erw i se, t h e O f f i ci al s c on t en d that a propert y ow n er s u f fers but a s i ngl e i nj u ry a t th e t i m e t he e as em ent i ni t i al l y r ol l s ont o t he pr ope r t y. U nder t hi s l ogi c , i f

a s t at e i nf

or m s a pr ope r t y o w ner t hat i t has i m pos ed an
e as e m e nt o n a pa r t i c u l ar p ar c e lo f l and , a nd t he o w ne r t he n t r ans fe r s t he pr o pe r t y t o a ne w o w ne r , t he s t at e c o ul d a s s e r t a n e as e m e nt o n di f fe r e nt a nd l ar ge r po r t i o ns o f

t he pa r c e lw i t ho ut e f fe c t i ng a ne w c o ns t i t ut i o nal i nj ur y. The O f f i ci al s of fer n o sup port f

or t h i s proposi t i on . Indeed , a ph ysi calocc u pa t i on of a prop ert y m ay con st i t u t e a t ak i n g d e sp ite a n al l eged preexi st i n g easem en t of
a s m a lle r s c o p e . See , e . g. , O w en v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 851 F

. 2d 140 4, 141 5 ( F ed. C i r. 19 88 )

. W e , t he r e f

ore, r ej e c t t he O f

f i c i al s ’a r gum e nt t hatSe ve r anc e l ac ks st andi ng. C . R i p en ess Th e Of f i c i a l s c o n t e nd t ha t S e v e r a n c e ’ s c l a i m s a r e p r e m a t u r e . As
ex p l a i n ed , S ev era n ce b ri n gs tw o se p a ra te con s tit u tio n a lch a l l en ge s: a F i ft hN o. 07- 20409

8 A m en dm en t t ak i n gs cl ai m an d a F ou rt h A m en dm en t sei zure cl ai m . B ecau se di s t i nc t r i pe ne s s i n qui r i e s a ppl y t o t he s e c l ai m s , w e a ddr e s s e ac h i n t ur n. Ri p e n e s s i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w, wh i c h we r e v i e w de no vo . Ur b a n De v e l o p e r s LLC
v. C i ty of

Ja ckson , 4 6 8 F .3d 2 8 1 , 2 9 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ).

1 . R i p e n e s s o f

T a k i n g s C l a i ms The di s t r i c t c o ur t r e l i e d e xc l us i ve l y o n t he t r ad i t i onalc as e - and

c o nt r o ve r s y ana l ys i s i n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he r Se ve r anc e ’ s cl ai m s ar e ri pe . The Supr e m e Cour t , ho w e ve r , ha s a do pt e d a s pe c i al , t w o - pr o ng t e s t f o r e va l uat i ng
r i p e n e s s u n d e r th e T a k in g s C la u s e . S ee Wi l l i a m s o n Co u n ty Reg ’lP l a n n i ng Com m ’ n v . Ham i l t o n Bank , 473 U

. S. 172, 186, 194, 105 S. C t
. 3108, 3116, 3120- 2 1 (1 9 8 5 ). Ata k in g s cla im is n o t r ip e u n til (1 ) th e re le v a n t g o v e r n m e n ta l u n it has r e ac he d a f

i nalde c i s i o n a s t o ho w t h e regu l at i o n wi l lb e a ppl i e d t o t he l and o w ne r , a nd ( 2) t he pl ai nt i f f has s o ugh t c o m pe ns at i o n f o r t he a l l e ge d t ak i ng th r o u g h w h a te v e r a d e q u a te p r o c e d u r e s th e s ta te p r o v id e s . I d. A t is s u e h e r e is
on l y th e se con d pr on g, t h e a d e q u a c y o f th e sta te p roce d u res to co m p en sa te l a n d ow n ers for th eir pro p erty tak en by the go ve rn m en t. T h e O f f i ci al s c on t en d that Severan ce’ s taki n gs cl ai m s are n ot ri pe u n der t h e st ate proc edu res pron g becau se Severan ce fai l ed to seek j u stcom pen sati on i n state cou rt. S ev era n ce co u n ters w i th sev era larg u m en ts. S h e fi rst ass erts th a t Will ia m so n C o u n ty ’ s s ta te p r o c e d u r e s ru le is in a p p l i c a b le to h e r s u it becau se t h i s c ase i n volv e s a ph ysi calt ak i n g, w h ereas Will ia m so n C o u n ty i nvol ved a r egul at or y t aki ng, and bec ause s he s ee ks i nj unct i ve r at her t han
com pen sator y rel i ef

. N ei t h er di stin ction rend ers Will ia m so n C o u n ty i n ap pl i cabl e. S everan ce’ s argum e n t t h at t h e st ate proc edu res rul e does not app l y t o a phy s i c al t ak i ngs c l ai m i s f o r e c l o s e d i n t hi s c i r c ui t
. I n Ur ban D e ve l ope r s LL Cv. C i ty of Ja ckson , t h i s court ap pl i ed the Will ia m so n C o u n ty ri penes s i nqui r y t o a n

“ o r di nar y, ” “ no n- r e gul at o r y” phy s i c alt ak i ngs c l ai m , and f o und t he c l ai m unr i peN o. 07- 20409

9 u n d e r th e te s t’s s e c o n d p r o n g . 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 2 9 4 -9 5 ; accord Pet er s v . Vill age of C l if t on , 498 F. 3d 727, 733 ( 7t h C i r . 2007) ( appl yi ng Will ia m so n C o u n ty ’ s s e c o nd p r o n gto a p h y s ic a l ta k in g s cla im ); Pa scoag R e s e r v o i r& D am , LLCv . Rhode I s l and , 3 3 7 F .3 d 8 7 , 9 1 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (s a m e ); D a n iel v. C o u n ty o f S a n ta B arba ra , 2 8 8 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 2 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (s a m e ); A rnet t v. M yers , 281 F. 3d 552, 5 6 3 (6t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( sa m e ). S ev era n ce a l so co n ten d s th a t Will ia m so n C o u n ty ’ s s ta te p r o c e d u r e ru le is i nappl i c abl e b ec ause s he s ee ks onl y i n j u n c t i ve and dec l ar at or y r el i ef, w her eas t he c l ai m anti n Will ia m so n C o u n ty sough t com pen sator y da m ages. Severan ce d oe s n ot ex p l a i n w h y th i s d i sti n cti on sh ou l d be of con seq u en ce, n or do es sh e cit e anya ut ho r i t y t o s upp o r t he r po si t i on . Sev e r alo t he r c i r c ui t s ha ve he l d t o t he
c ont r ar y by appl yi ng Wi l l i am son C ou n ty to c l ai m s s eeking i nj u n ct i ve or d e c l a r a to r y re lie f. S ee Pet ers , 4 9 8 F .3 d a t 7 3 0 ; Vo n Ke r s s e nb r o c k

- Pr a s c hm a v. S au n d ers , 12 1 F

. 3 d 37 3 , 37 9 ( 8 th C i r. 19 9 7 ); D an i el , 288 F. 3d at384- 85; B ick er staff C lay P ro d s. Co . v . Ha rr is C o u n ty , 89 F

. 3d 148 1, 149 0 ( 11th C i r. 19 96 )

. M o r e o ve r , i n c r af t i ng t he s t at e pr o c e dur e s r e qui r e m e nt i n Wi l l i am son Cou n ty , t he Supr e m e Cour t r e l i e d o n R u ckelsha u s v. Mon san t o C o. , 46 7 U

. S

. 986, 10 18 n. 21 , 1 04 S. Ct

. 2 86 2, 2 88 1 n. 21 ( 19 84 ) , a c as e i n whi c h t he pl ai nt i f f s o ugh t
o nl y i nj unc t i ve a nd d e c l ar at o r y r e l i e f

. W e m us t rej e c t herpr o f fe r e d d i s t i nc t i o n. S e v e ra n ce n e x t a ss e rts th a t e v e n if Will ia m so n C o u n ty ’ s s t ate proc edu res requ i rem en t app l i es t o al lt ak i n gs cl ai m s, t h e requi rem en t i s s ati sf i ed h ere. U n der Will ia m s o n C o u n ty , a p rop erty ow n er n ee d n ot av a i lh i m self of state pro c edur es be f

ore p u rsu i ng a t aki ngs c l ai m i n fede r alc our t i f he c an dem on st rat e t h at t h e s t ate’ s procedures f or s eeking com pen sati on are

“ unavai l abl e o r i nadequat e. ” 473 U

. S. at197, 105 S. C t
. at3122. S ev era n ce m a i n tain s th a t Will ia m so n C o u n ty sh ou l d b e con stru ed on l y to requ i re pursu i t of a d m i ni s t r at i ve com pen sati on procedu res, not s t ate- court l i t i gat i on. Becaus e ne i t her t he O B A norany adm i ni st r at i ve r ul e pr es c r i bes anN o. 07- 20409

10 ad m i n i st rat i ve procedu re f or s eeking com pen sati on fro m t h e st ate, Sev eran ce c o n te n d s th a t s ta te p r o c e d u r e s a r e u n a v a ila b le a n d h e r c l a i m s a r e rip e . T h is
ar gum e nt i s i r r e c o nc i l ab l e w i t h Will ia m so n C o u n ty i t se l f, w hi c h hel d a t aki ngs cl ai m “ prem ature” becau se t h e parti es fai l ed to u se T en n essee’ s j u di ci al i n verse cond em n ati on procedu re. I t i s al so at odd s w i t h m u l t i pl e deci si on s of t h i s c ou rt t h at f ou n d taki n gs cl ai m s u n ri pe w h en the cl ai m an t fai l ed to seek com pen sati on in s ta te co u r ts b e fo r e filin ga fe d e r a l cla im

. See , e . g. , Urban D evelopers , 468 F. 3d
a t 2 9 5 ; B ryan v. C i ty of Mad i son , 2 1 3 F .3d 2 6 7 , 2 7 6 n .16 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). N on eth eless, S ev era n ce a sse rts th a t re q u i ri n g h er fi rst to li ti ga te i n state
c o ur t w o ul d, t hr o ugh t he pr i nc i pl e s o f r e s j udi c at a, c l ai m and i s s ue pr e c l us i o n, ef fect i vel y bar h er f

rom ever l i t i gati n g h er t ak i n gs cl ai m i n federal court
. W e are
n o t b lin d t o t h is p o te n tia l e ffe c t. S ee S an R em o Hot el, L

. P

. v. C i ty & C ou n ty of S an Fran ci sco , 5 4 5 U .S . 3 2 3 , 3 5 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 4 9 1 , 2 5 0 9 (2 0 0 5 ) (R e h n q u is t, C .J ., co n cu rri n g) ( st ati n g t h at t h e court shou l d reconsi der t h e st ate- l i t i gati on
r e qui r e m e nt , as “ Wil lia m so n C o u n ty al lbut guar ant ee s t hat c l ai m ant s w i l lbe
u n able t o uti l i ze th e federalcourt s t o enfor ce t h e F i f t h A m en dm en t ’ s j u st
c o m pe ns at i o n g uar ant e e ” )

. H o w e ve r , a m aj o r i t y o f t he Supr e m e Cour t i n San R e mo w er e unc onc er ned by th i s resul t , ob se r vi ng t hat “ [ i ] t i s hardl y a r adi c al
n o tion to r e co g n ize th a t, a s a p ra ctica l m a tte r, a sig n ifi ca n t n u m b e r o f p la in tiffs
w i l ln ece ssa ri l y li ti ga te th eir fed era lta k i n gs claim s i n s tate cou rts. ” I d. at346, 12 5 S. Ct

. a t 2 50 6. The Cour t e xp l ai ne d t hat“ [ s ] t at e c o ur t s a r e f ul l y c o m pe t e nt t o a dj udi c at e c o ns t i t ut i o na lc h a l l e n g e s t o l o c a ll a n d

- u s e d e c i s i o n s , ” a nd “ [ i ] nde e d,
s ta te co u r ts u n d o u b te d ly h a v e m o r e e x p e r ie n c e th a n fe d e r a l c o u r ts d o in
r es ol vi ng t he co m p l ex fac t ual , t ec hni c al , and l egalques t i ons ” i m pl i c at ed by p r o p e r ty re g u la tio n . I d. a t 3 4 7 , 1 2 5 S

. C t
. a t 2 5 0 7
. T h u s , u n l e s s t h e S u p r e me C ou rt ove rru l es th e sta te p roce d u res re q u i rem en t, w e a re b ou n d to give effect to i t.N o. 07- 20409

See Holliday AmusementCo. of Charleston, In c. v. Sou thC arolina , 493F .3d 4 04, 408 6 (4 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7); Rockst ead v. Cityof Cryst al Lake , 4 8 6F .3 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 5 -6 6( 7 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7); S GB Fin. Serv s. , Inc. v. Conso l. City of India nap oli s- Ma ri on County , 23 5 F .3d 1 036 , 10 39 (7thC ir. 2 0 0 0). Othe r co urts have indic ated that state procedures, th ough “av ailab le , ” may b e

7 in a de qu ateif th e pl aintiff i s c ertaint o lo sei nst atec ourt
. See Lit tlefie ld v. Cit y of Afton , 785F .2d 5 96, 609(8th Cir. 1 986) (overruled on oth er grou nds) (“Untilthe Minne sota courts have ruled that a n inverse conde mnation acti on mayn ot b e b rought or den ies damages insu ch an act ion , app ellant s’claimof tak ing wit houtjust com pens atio n is not ripe for dec isi on by a fe de ral c ourt .”(em ph a si s a dd ed)) ; Sch nuck v. Cit y of San ta Monica , 93 5 F .2d 1 71, 174(9th Cir. 199 1) (e xa miningwhether state courts ha d made clear that th eywoul d reje ct anytakingcl aim b a se d onth e re nt co ntroll aw th e pl aintiff c h all en ged). 11 S everan ce next argues t h at Texa s’ s p rocedu res are i n ad equ ate because
s t at e c o ur t s w o ul d un do ubt e dl y de ny c o m pe ns at i o n i f s he w e r e t o s e e k i t
. The O ffic ia ls co u n te rth a t t h e in a d e q u a c y e x c e p tio n to th e s ta te p r o c e d u r e s ru le
a p p lie s o n ly w h e n a s ta te c o u r t cla im d o e s n o t e x is t a t a ll, i

. e. , the re is no state
c our t vehi c l e f

or as se r t i ng t he r el evant c l ai m , not w hen t he pl ai nt i f f be l i eve s an a v a il a b le p r o c e d u r e w il l b e u n s u c c e s s fu l. S o m e c ir c u it s s u b s c r ib e to th e s t a t e ’s constr u ct i on , bu t t h i s c ou rtha s adop t ed a l e ss rest ri ct i ve defi n i t i on of 6

“ i nad e qua t e . ” I n S am aad v

. Ci ty of D al l as , w e f

o und m e r i t i n Wi l l i am son C o u n ty ’ s “ i m pl i ci t concl u si on t h at t h e m ere exi st en ce of som e com p e n sa tion
m e c ha ni s m d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e nd e r t ho s e p r o c e d ur e s a d e q ua t e . ” 9 4 0 F. 2d 9 2 5 , 9 3 4 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 1 ). R a th er, “i n a d eq u a te p roce d u res a re th ose tha t alm ost
ce rta in ly w i l ln ot j u stl y co m p en sa te the cl a i m a n t. ” I d. ( i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks
om i t t ed). O u r c ases hav e t h eref ore exam i n ed st ate l aw to deter m i n e w h et h er a va i l a b l e cou rts “un q u estion a b l y w ou l d aff ord [ th e p l a i n ti ff

] n o rem ed y.” I

d. at 9 3 5 ; seeal so R o lf v . C ity o f S a n A n ton io , 7 7 F .3d 8 2 3 , 8 2 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). 7 T u rn i n g to th a t i n q u i ry , S ev era n ce, w h o bea rs th e bu rd en of p roo f, ass erts th a t T e x a s co u r ts h a v e u n ifo r m ly h e ld th a t n o ta k in gre s u lts w h e n s ta te o ffic ia ls
c onc l ude t hat an O B A be ac h ac c es s eas em ent has r ol l ed ove r pr i vat e pr ope r t y. But t he Te xa s Supr e m e Cour t ha s no t y e t a ddr e s s e d whet he r i m po s i t i o n o f t heN o. 07- 20409

M o odyh el d , incorre ctly , th at the takin gs issue raise d byth e l ando wners was 8
“ resolved” in Seaway , 3 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2 3 (T e x . C iv . Ap p . —H o u s t o n 1 9 6 4 , w rit r ef ’dn .r .e .) evidentlybe cau se th e T ex as Supreme Court de nie d review “n .r.e.,” i.e. , “no rev er sib lee rror .” Th e “n .r .e .”d es ign ati on , h ow ever , b es po ken o co mme nt onth e me ritsb yth e st atesupr em e co u rtat th at time. C

om me rc ia l St an dardI n s. C o. v . Ma ri n , 488 S. W.2 d 861, 864 (Tex. Civ. App. —SanAntonio 197 2, writ re f’d n .r.e.) (cited with approval in Uli co C as. C o. v. Allied Pilots Ass’

n. , 2 6 2 S .W .3 d 7 7 3 , 7 8 1 n .3(T ex . 2 0 0 8))

. M a t cha , alone amon gT ex a s c ourt s, adopte d th e co mmon l aw doc trin e o f “custo m” to support public beach ac cess a nd a ro lling eas em ent, and then de clar ed co nclus ionall y that its novel doc tri ne elim i n a t e dany tak ings is su e. Arringto nrelied on Match a , but also erron eou sly cited Fein man(in whi ch the ta ki ngs issue w as w aived), and Seaway(whichdidn oti nvolv e ar ollin ge a se me nt a n d iso th erwi se distin guishable). These dec isions furni sh no co mpellingexplan atio n why, when a rolling easement cl aims lan d th at was behin d the vegetation lin e beforea storm and ther eforesubje ct to the lan downers’ right to e xclude the public, the shifte d boun daryhas n ot b een“taken” and the gove rnment i s no t re quired to pay ju st compen satio n. I ndubitably , no“fixed” b ackgroun d principle s of state law are articulate d, onlymut ua ll y inc onsi stent post h oc r atio nal es. Th e st ateS u pr em e C ourt mu stso rto u t th e co nfu si on . Seegen eral lyNeal E . Pirkle, Note, Maintaining

Public Access to Texas Coastal Beaches : Th e P astan d The Fu tu re , 46BAYLO R L. R EV . 1 0 9 3( 1 9 9 4). 12 r ol l i ng eas em ent i s c ons i st ent w i t h st at e l aw orw het her c om pensa t i on m ustbe
aw ar ded w hen t he e as em ent m ove s ont o pr evi ous l y u n en cu m ber ed pr ope r t y. Indeed , the st ate S u prem e C ou rta pp ears to h ave avoided rul i n g on t h ese i ssues
w h ose reso l u ti on i s vital to th e ri gh ts o f th ou sa n d s of T ex a s be a ch fron t pro p erty
ow n ers. W h i l e t h ree i n t erm edi ate ap pel l ate courts h ave u ph el d the i m posi t i on of
a r o l l i ng e as e m e nt a nd c o nc l ude d t hati t do e s no t e f fe c t a t ak i ng, t he de c i s i o ns o ffe r e d litt le to n o a n a ly s is o f th e ta k in g s is s u e . S ee A rri ng ton v . Matt ox , 7 6 7 S .W .2 d 9 5 7 , 9 5 8 -5 9 (T e x . A p p .— A u s tin 1 9 8 9 ); Matc h a v. Matt ox , 711 S. W

. 2d 9 5 , 1 0 1 (T e x . A p p .— A u s tin 1 9 8 6 ); Mo o dy v. W h ite , 593 S. W

. 2d 372, 379- 80 ( Tex. C i v. A pp . — C orpu s C h ri st i1 979 )

. In ad di t i on , tw o a ssum pti on s on w h i ch these 8
c o u r ts fo u n d n o ta k in ga r e o p e n to d e b a te
. O n e a s s u m p tio n o f th e s e co u r ts is t hat t he “ r ol l i ng eas em ent doc t r i ne” i nhere s i n l ongs t andi ng pr i nci pl es of Texas
c o m m o n la w a n d is n o t a c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e O B A

. S ee A rri ngt on , 767 S. W

. 2d at 9 5 8 ; Mat c ha , 7 1 1 S. W

. 2 d a t 1 0 1
. I n t he s e m i na l c a s e e s t a b l i s hi ng t hat
ease m ent s shi f

t as t he nat urals hor el i ne s hi f t s, t he c our t s t at ed t hat “ [ c ] ou rtsN o. 07- 20409

B ecau se of certain systemic flaws, it is har d to respon d to the dissent, whichasserts 9 that T ex as l aw is utte rlyclear. For insta nce, thedissent does not de ign to interpret the OBA’ s lan gu age; torespo nd to this opinion’s ana ly s is of lower Tex as ca ses; to noteth e l aw revi ew articles that h ave di scussed the OBA; or to engage in a historical surveyof Te xa s land titlelaw tosupp ort it s p os itio n . See, e.g. , Luttes v. State , 3 24 S

. W. 2d 167(T ex . 19 58) (analy zi ng ownership o f T ex as beachland base d on Spanishland grants). Moreover, it i s no t even clear th at th e di sse nt h a s r ea d the maj orityo pi nio n , whichd oe s not“ de cl areth at withe a chshif t of t he vegetation lin e, an ew ea sement is b orn.” Thatis an issue the Tex as Supreme Court mu sta ddre ss. No r do esthiso pi nio nh ol d th at Sev er a n ce ’sc laim “willrip eni nth e future .” Th at de pe n dso nwh at T ex a s c ourt s do inthiso r oth erc a se s. 13 hav e uph e l d t he c o nc e pto f a r o l l i ng e as e m e nt a l o ng r i ve r s and t he s e a f o r m any years, ” sug gest i n g i t w as deci di n g w h et h er t h e rol l i n g easem en t w as a produ ct
o f c o m m o n la w . Fe i nm an , 7 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 1 1 0 -1 1
. Fe i nm an , h o w e v e r , u ltim a te ly ch a ra cterized the roll i n g e a sem en t as “i m p l i ci t i n th e A ct. ” I d. at 111
. W h et h er t h e p u b li c’s beach acces s easem en t ari ses by vir t u e of com m on l aw an d u n der
w h a t t h e o r y — p r e s c r ip tio n , im p lie d d e d ic a tio n , cu s to m o r th e O B A its e lf — is a cri t i calcom pon en t of t a k in g s a n al ysi s, yet t h e st ate c ou rt s’deci si on s are
u tterl y in con sist en t. 9 Th e s ec ond ar guabl e a ss um pt i on i s t hat t he ro l l i ng eas em ent m ay o b lite r a te th e la n d o w n e r ’ s im p r o v e m e n ts , e . g. , by r equ i ri n g rem oval o f en t i re ho us e s t hatw he n b ui l t w e r e o n t he l and w ar d s i de o f t he v e ge t at i o n l i ne . The Se away cas e, w h i ch f i rst care fu l l y co n stru ed the O B A ’ s rea ch i n reg a rd to G al ve s t o n’ s W e s t Bea c h, he l d o nl y t hat a pub l i c e as e m e nt had e xi s t e d o ve r t he dry bea ch by i m pl i ed d edi cat i on or prescr i pti on . In so h ol di n g, the cou rtnoted
m ore t h an once t h at t h e beach ’ s t i de an d veg et ati on bou n da ri es had rem ai n ed
e s s e n tia lly s ta b le fo r tw o h u n d r e d y e a r s o r m o r e , t h e s ta b ility in te r r u p te d o n ly b y o c c a s io n a l, te m p o r a r y ch a n g e s ca u s e d b y s to r m s . Se away , 375 S. W

. 2d at931. S ee als o Mo o dy , 593 S. W

. 2d at379 ( c i t i ng Se away t o s upportt he pr opo si t i on t hat

“ t h ere i s con si derab l e test i m on y i n the recor d w h i ch est abli shes t h e stabi l i t y of th e b e a c h in q u e s tio n ”). Se away , i n fac t , de c l i ne d t o con si der t he consti t u t i on al i t y of

t h e O B A preci sel y becau se t h e st ate’ s easem en t i n t h at c aseN o. 07- 20409

I t i s possib le, as th e di ssent assumes, that the easement, once it attach es toprivate 10 property, aut omatically creates o r de stroy s a right of public access a s thevegetation lin e shifts lan dward o r seaward, re spectively . I t i s al so possibleth at the lan gu age of the Open B each es Actme a n s no mo reth a nwhat it say s: Th e pub lic onlyob tain s a ri ght toi n gre ss a n d egre ss on lan d be tween the meanlo w tide and thevegetation lin e "if the public h as acquired a right of u se orea s em en tt o oro ve r a n areabypre scripti on, dedication , or has retaine d a right by virtueof continu ous right in the public." T EX . NAT . R ES . C O D E § 6 1.01 1(a). A bsent prescription , dedicati on or continu ous right, the public does not automaticallyh ave a"ri ght of ingress a nd egress toth e l arger area extendingfrom t he m ea n lo wtide toth e lineof ve getati on." Id

. The dissent 's insistence that thi s potential scheme is cumbersomedoes no t ch a n ge th e st atute 'sme a nin g , n ord oe s it cl arifyth e a mb igu ityi nT ex a s c a se law. 14 w a s p r o v e d w ith f i n d i n g s , in tera lia , th a t a “b e a c h ” “ h a d re m a in e d in
s ubs t ant i al l y t he s am e g e o gr ap hi c alpo si t i o n s i nc e t he t i m e o f t he J o ne s [ and ] H al lgran t ” ; t h at t h e “ m ean hi gh w aterl i n e ha s not ad van ced l an d w ard si n ce Ju l y 31, 193 1”; t h at “ si n ce N ovem b e r 2 8 , 1 840 [ , ] t h ere has been no l an dw ard advance of

t he m ean hi gh t i de i n t he ar ea use d as a publ i c w ay” ; and “ [ t ] her e has b ee n n o ne t ero sion a l on g th e sh ore of th e G u l f of M ex i co.” Se away , 375 S. W

. 2d at 927. G i ven the unc e r t ai nt y and a m bi gui t y o f Te xa s l aw c o nc e r ni ng r o l l i ng easem en t s and t h e t ak i n gs consequ en ces th e re of, t h e T exas S u prem e C ou rt
m ig h t a w a r d re lie f u n d e r th e fa c ts S e v e r a n c e h a s a lle g e d

. S ee R o lf , 77 F. 3d 823, 827 ( di sm i ss i ng a t aki ngs c l ai m as unri pe w her e t he Texas Suprem e Courthad
n ot ye t a d d ress ed the plain ti ff ’ s ex a ct cl a i m ). B eca u se w e ca n n ot sa y w i th cert ai n t y t h at Severan ce w ou l d be den i ed com pen sati on i f she w ere t o bri n g h er cl a i m s i n state cou rt, h er tak i n gs cl a i m i s p rem a tu re in th i s cou rt. 10 2 . R ip e n e s s o f S e iz u r e C la im U n lik e h e r ta k in g s c la im , S e v e r a n c e ’ s F o u r th A m e n d m e n t s e iz u r e cla im , w h i ch i s n ot governed by the Will ia m so n C o u n ty fr a m e w o r k , is rip e . S ee A b b o tt L a b o ra tori es v. G ard n er , 387 U

. S. 136, 149- 55, 87 S. C t
. 1507, 1515- 18 ( 1967) ( ou t l i n i n g as rel evan t fact ors ( 1) w h et h er t h e i ssues are pu rel y l egal; ( 2) w h et h er t h e i ssues are bas e d o n f i n al agen cy act i on ; ( 3) w h et h er t h e contr oversy ha s aN o. 07- 20409

15 d ir e c t a n d im m e d ia te im p a c t o n th e p la in tiff; a n d (4 ) w h e th e r th e litig a tio n w ill
e x p e d ite, ra th e r th a n d e la y or im p e d e , e ffec tiv e en for ce m e n t b y th e a g e n cy ). The O f f i c i al s do no t c o nt e s t t hatt he se fact o r s a l ls upp o r t f i ndi ng S everan ce’ s s ei zure cl ai m ri pe. T h e i ssues are pu rel y l egal. Th e di st ri ctcourt de t e r m i ne d t hatSe ve r anc e ’ s c l ai m s t ur n on w h et he r t he r o l l i ng e as e m e nt doctr i n e i s an a sp e ct of T exas com m on l aw or a creat u re of t h e O B A

. Fu rt h er fac t ual dev el opm ent i s unn ec es sa r y. Sec ond, t he O f f i c i al s have ado pt ed t he f i nal
a ge n cy po sit i on tha t th e lan d w a rd m ov em en t of the ve ge tati on l i n e on to S ev era n ce’ s p rop erty bu rd en s t h a t p rop erty w i th a p u b l i c acc ess ea sem en t,
w i t h ou t proof

of t h e el em en t s of

com m on l aw p rescri pti on , ded i cat i on , or custom ary rig h t o n the n ew area an d w i t h ou t an y provi si on of j u st
com pen sati on . Th i rd, t h e contr oversy ha s a di rect a n d im m edi ate i m pa cton S everan ce. Th e O f

f i ci al s’en for cem en t of a pu bl i c easem en t preven t s her f rom la w fu lly e x c lu d in gth e p u b lic fr o m h e r la n d , T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 61. 014 (b) , an d su bj ect s her t o st i f f f i n an ci al pen al t i es i f she vi ol ates t h ese
r e s tr ic tio n s , T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 61
. 01 8( c )

. Fo ur t h, r e s o l vi ng t he i s s ue no w w o ul d fac i l i t at e O BA e nf o r c e m e nt a nd e l i m i nat e unc e r t ai nt y as t o t he
c ons t i t ut i onal i t y of t he r ol l i ng eas em ent doc t r i ne f or num er ou s T exas la n d o w n e r s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in h o ld in gth a t t h is cla im is
m e r e ly “a r g u a b ly rip e .” I V. B e c a u s e w e r eje c t th e O ff ic ia ls ’ ju s t ic ia b il it y a t t a c k s o n S e v e r a n c e ’s sei zure cl ai m , w e m u stconsi der w h et h er th e d i st ri ctcourt properl y di sm i ssed t h i s c l ai m un der R u l e 12(b )(6). T h e gran t of a m ot i on t o di sm i ss u n der Rul e 12 (b) ( 6) i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . Ke n n e dy v . C h a s e Ma n h a t t a n B a n k US A , NA , 369 F

. 3d 833 , 839 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)

. W e const rue the com pl ai n t i n the l i gh t m ost fa v o r a b le to th e p la in t if f a n d d r a w a l l r e a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s in th e p la in t if f's fa v o r . S ee Lov i ck v. R i t em on ey Lt d. , 3 7 8 F. 3 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 7 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. ToN o. 07- 20409

16 su rv i ve a R u l e 1 2 (b)( 6 ) m oti on to d i sm i ss, th e p l a i n ti ff m u st plea d “en ou gh fa cts to s tate a claim to reli ef th a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” B ell A tl. C o rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 1 2 7 S

. C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 7 4 (20 0 7 ). T h e F ou rth A m en d m en t, m a d e a p p l i ca b l e to th e S tates by th e F ou rteen th A m e n d m e n t, K

erv. C a lif

o rn ia , 3 7 4 U .S

. 2 3 , 3 0 , 8 3 S

. C t. 1 6 2 3 , 1 6 2 8 (19 6 3 ), p r o v id e s in r e le v a n t p a r t th a t th e “r ig h t of th e p e o p le to b e s e c u r e in t h e ir pe r s o ns , ho us e s , pa pe r s , a nd e f fe c t s , a ga i ns t unr e as o nab l e s e ar c he s a nd sei zures, shallnot be vi ol ated .

. . . ” A “ sei zure” of property oc curs w h en “ t h ere i s so m e m eani ngf

ul i nt er fer enc e w i t h an i nd iv i d ual ’ s pos se ss or y i nt er es t s i n t hat p rop erty
. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ja cobsen , 4 6 6 U .S

. 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 , 1 0 4 S

. C t. 1 6 5 2 , (1 9 8 4 ); S o ld a l v. Co o k C o u n ty , 5 0 6 U .S

. 5 6 , 6 1 , 1 1 3 S

. C t. 5 3 8 , 5 4 3 (19 9 2 ). T h e O ffic ia ls p r e lim in a r ily co n te n d th a t a n y F o u r th A m e n d m e n t c la im h ere i s f

u l l y sub sum ed by Sev eran ce' s t ak i n gs cl ai m an d is th e refor e not
s e pa r at e l y c o gni z ab l e . W e r ej ect this c o nt e nt i o n. The Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt
a p p lie s to civ il a s w e ll a s cr im in a l s e iz u r e s , Fr e e m an v. Ci ty of D al l as , 242 F. 3d 642, 647 n. 5 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc ), a n d t he Suprem e Courthol ds t hat an i nt er fer enc e w i t h i ndi vi dual pr ope r t y r i ght s m ay be f ound t o br eac h m or e t han
o n e p r o v is io n o f th e C o n s tit u tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v. Jam e s D ani e lG o o d Re al P rop er ty , 510 U

. S

. 43, 49-50, 1 14 S

. C t
. 492 , 499 ( 199 3)

. Th e C ou rtha s not speci f i cal l y rul ed that sepa rat e cl ai m s f or c on st i t u t i on al l y u n reasona bl e sei zure a n d ta k in go f p r o p e r ty m a y co e x is t, b u t t h e F o u r th C ir c u it h a s s o h e ld

. P res l ey v . C ity o f C h a rlo ttesv ill e , 464 F

. 3d 480 , 487 ( 4th C i r. 200 6)

. F u rt h er, t h i s c ou rt h as rul ed m ore t h an on ce that su bstanti ve du e process , procedu raldu e process , e qua lpr o t e c t i o n a nd t a k i n g s c l a i m s mayb e i m p l i c a t e d s i m ul t ane o us l y i n v ar i o us t yp es of governm en t al act i on s t h at i n t erf ere w i t h i n div i du al property r i gh t s. S im i In v . C o .. v. Ha rr is C o u n ty , 2 3 6 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 -4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); Jo hn Cor p. v. C i ty of

Hou st on , 214 F

. 3d 573 , 584

- 85 (5t h C i r. 20 0 0 ). T h i s c ou rtcauti on ed t h at s u bsta n tiv e d u e process i s not t h e “ ap propri ate avenu e of rel i ef ” f or m ostN o. 07- 20409

17 l an dow n er c om pl ai n t s, an d that, w ith r a re except i on s, t ak i n gs cl au se

“j ur i s pr ude nc e c annot be c i r c um ve nt e d b y ar t f ulpl e ad i ng o f

s ubs t ant i ve due p r o c e s s cl a i m s. ” S im i In v . C o . v . Ha rr is C o u n ty , 2 5 6 F. 3 d 3 2 3 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 01) (p e r cu r ia m ), d eny ingr eh ’ gto 236 F

. 3d 240 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)

. Th e reason f or s u ch
e xp r e s s e d c aut i o n m us t b e t hata s pe c i f i c c o ns t i t ut i o nalpr ot e c t i o n o ugh t ge ne r al l y t o c o nt r o lo ve r c l ai m s m ad e u nde r t he r ubr i c o f s ubs t ant i ve due p r o c e s s . T h e F o u r th a n d F ifth A m e n d m e n ts , h o w e v e r , b o th p r o v id e s p e c ific
con sti tu ti on a lcom m a n d s. T h a t t h ey m a y h a ve ev olved thr o u g h cas elaw to overl ap i n provi di n g rem edi es f or som e dep ri vati on s of property i n t erest s does not a ut ho r i z e t hi s c o ur t t o fa i l t o a p p l y o ne o r t he o t he r p r o v i s i o n. I ndeed, as P res l ey not e d, t he e l e m e nt s o f a v i o l at i o n o f

t he t w o a m e ndm e nt s di f fe r , w i t h t he to u ch sto n e o f a t a k in g s c la im b e in glac k of ju st c o m p e n sa tion a n d th a t of a
se i zu re cl ai m be i ng i t s unreas onabl enes s. 464 F. 3d at485. Furt her , § 1983
au t h ori zes di f

ferent dam age m easu res f or t h e cl ai m s. T h i s i s not t o say t h at, a s th e O f f i ci al s f ear, “ every ordi n ary t ak i n g of pr o pe r t y f

o r pub l i c us e i s t o b e he r e af t e ra c t i o nab l e a s a se i z ur e . ” I n t he ordi n ary case, pu bl i c authori t i es c on dem n pri vate propert y accordi n g t o f i xed
r u le s a n d re g u la tio n s ; th e p r o c e s s t h a t o c c u r s a n d t h e c o m p e n s a tio n p a id co u ld h a rd l y b e cha l l en ge d a s "u n rea son a b l e." S ee Fr e e m an , 2 42 F. 3d a t 6 54 ( f i ndi ng no unr e as o nab l e s e i z ur e w he r e pr i va t e pr o pe rt y w as pr o pe r l y c o nde m ne d a nd dem ol i she d under l oca l p ol i c e po w er )

. N orw oul d m any r egul at or y t aki ngs i m pl i cat e t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t , f or, as P res l ey no t e s , t he y m a y n o t i nvo l ve suf f i c i ent i nt er fer enc e w i t h pos se ss or y i nt er e s t s t o c o ns t i t ut e a s ei zur e. 464 F. 3d
a t 4 8 5 ( c i t i ng L u c a s v . S

. C

. C o a s t a lC o mm . , 50 5 U

. S

. 10 0 3 , 10 1 4 , 11 2 S

. C t. 2 8 8 6 , 2 8 9 2 -9 3 (19 9 2 )). H ere , h ow ev e r , S ev era n ce su ff i ci en tl y a sse rts the elem en ts of a F ou rth A m e n d m e n t c la im , i

. e. , ( a) a m e a n in g ful i n t erf erence w i t h her possessor y in te r e s ts in h e r p r o p e r ty , w h ic h is (b ) u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e th e in te r fe r e n c e isN o. 07- 20409

See, e.g. , F

einman , 717 S. W.2 d at 110 (c itin g Barn ey v. Cit y of K eokuk , 94U.S. 324 , 11 3 3 9 -3 4 0 (1 8 7 6); Luttes v. State , 3 2 4S .W .2 d 1 6 7(T ex . 1 9 5 8); Cou nt y of H a waii v. Sotomura , 5 1 7P .2 d 5 7 , 6 1 ( Hawaii1 9 7 3 ); Ho rganv. T ow nC ou n ci l , 8 0 A

. 2 7 1 (R .I

. 1 9 1 1 ); City of Chica go v. Ward , 4 8N .E

. 9 2 7(I ll

. 1 8 9 7); Godfrey v. Cityof Alto n , 1 2 I ll

. 2 9 , 3 6( 1 8 5 0))

. 18 u nju s tifie d b y s ta te la w o r , if ju s t i f i e d , t h e n u n c o m p e n s a te d

. S ee P res l ey , 4 6 4 F .3d at 487

- 88. Th e State assert s t h e app ropri ati on of an easem en t over be ac hf r o nt l and no t pr e vi o us l y s o e nc um be r e d, a nd t he c o ns e que nc e o f t he
easem en t , accor di n g t o t h e State, i s t h at Severan ce m ay n ei t h er r epa i r her da m ag e d ho us e s no r r e bui l d o n tha t seg m e nt o f he r pr o pe r t y no r e xc l ude t he pub l i c f r o m us i ng t he ne w dr y be ac h e ve n t ho ugh t he y w e r e pr e vi o us l y e xc l ude d. N o t o n ly h a s t h e S ta te th u s a p p r o p r ia te d a n e a s e m e n t o v e r h e r p r o p e r ty , b u t it de ni e s o w i ng anyc o m pe ns at i o n. The s e fac t s st at e a pot e nt i alcl ai m unde r t he F ou rt h as w el las Fif t h A m en dm en t s. U nf o r t unatel y, f

o r r e as o ns no t e d a bo ve , a c l e ar c ut r e s o l ut i o n o f t he
r es pec t i ve pro per t y r i ght s of Seve r an c e a nd t he St at e i s i m pos sibl e. Texas
ca se la w fails to a ffor d a co n sis te n t ra tion a le fo r th e cr e a tion o r s u sta in in gof a
r o llin gb e a c h fr o n t e a s e m e n t. V a r io u s a u th o r itie s c ite d b y lo w e r T e x a s co u r ts in sup port of

a com m on l aw “back groun d p ri n ci pl e” i n vol ve accret i on an d av u l si on oc c urr i ng at t he bo und ar i es of r ealpr ope r t y and do not addr es s w het her an e as e m en t ’ s b o unda r i e s m ayc hang e a ut o m at i c al l y w i t h c hang e s t o t he
s h o r e l i n e . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e a r e o b v i o u s c o n c e p t u a ld i f f i c u l t i e s i n c o n c l u d i ng 11 t h at an easem en t i s es t abli sh e d b y i m pl i ed d edi cat i on or prescr i pti on , f or e x a m p le , o v e r a r e a s o n w h ic h th e p u b lic h a s n e v e r s e t fo o t. C o n s e q u e n tly , it is
c onc ei vabl e t hat a de f i ni t i ve st at e c our t r ul i ng c oul d r es ul t i n any of s eve r al po s s i bi l i t i e s . Th e T exas Supr e m e Cour t m i ghtc o nc l ude t hat( a) no r o l l i ng easem en t i s r ecognized b y T exas l aw ; (b) a rol l i n g easem en t cann ot be al l ow ed t o di s pl ac e s t r uc t ur e s t hata l and o w n er p l ac e d o n t he pr o pe r t y be f o r e t he bo unda r y s hi f

t e d; ( c ) a ny s i gni f

i c ants hi f

t i n t he r o l l i ng e as e m e nt ' s b o unda r y dueN o. 07- 20409

I n Coast a lIn du st . Water Au th . v. Y ork , 5 3 2 S .W .2 d 9 4 9(T ex . 1 9 7 6), th e Supr em e 12 Court’s analysis of questi ons involving sub sidence and submer ge nce of property alo ng a nontidally -influenced part of th e Hou ston Ship C hannelcited with appare ntapprov al cases h ol di n gth at titl e do esn otp a ss b yavu ls io n , i.e. , sud den d epo sit s or re mo vals of land along a wate r b ou n dary . Id . at95 2. Nor is th ere a different rule depen ding on wheth er artificial o r n atural cau se s produ cedt h e ch a n ge. Id

. Seegen eral lyDinki n s, Texas Seashore Bou nda ry La w :T he Effectof Natu ral an d Artificial Modificat ions , 1 0Ho u s. L

. R ev . 4 3( 1 9 7 2 ). Y ork furnis h eshintsb u t n o re al gu id a n ceo nth e is su esb ef or e u s. The dissent’ s discussio n of reaso nab len ess is premature. Th e reaso nab len ess of the 13 inte rference with Severance's possessory inte rest must b e analyz ed in light of T ex as l aw, as the state courts ultimate lycon strue it. While accu sing th e ma jo rity of r us hi ngto allow th e Fourth Amen dment clai m to procee d, th e di ssent rushe s to ju dgment onth e merits, without waitin gf

orc larificati ono f th e re lev a nt law. 19 t o a na t ur als ho r e l i ne m o ve m e nt m us t b e a c c o m pa ni e d b y c o m pe ns at i o n o f t he l and o wne r ; o r ( d ) Te x a s r e c o g ni z e s a r o l l i nge a s e m e nta nd i t s e nf o r c e m e ntas provi ded i n t h e O B A , bu t no l an dow n er c om pen sati on i s r equ i red. W h et h er a 12

" r e as o nab l e " s e i z ur e ha s be e n ac c o m pl i s he d b y t he O f f i c i al s he r e de pe nds o n a defi n i t i ve constr u ct i on of T exas l aw a s to w h i ch there i s no st ate Su prem e C ou rt preceden t , m u ch l ess control l i n g preceden t
. C on sequ en t l y, t h e prud en t course i s f or thi s c o ur tt o c e r t i f y t o t he Te xa s Supr e m e Cour t t he i m po r t anta nd determ i n ati ve, bu t un resolved , qu est i on s of T exas l aw t h at un derl i e res ol u t i on of t h e sei zure cl ai m i n t h i s c ase. 13 CE RT I F I CAT I ON F RO M T HE UNI T ED S T AT ES C OUR T OF AP PE AL S F OR T HE FI FT H CI RCUI T TO TH E SU PR EM E COU RT OF T EXA S , P UR S UA NT T O A R T I C L E 5 , S E C T I ON 3

- C O F T HE TE XAS CONST I TUT I ON AND RULE 5 8 OF THE T EXAS RULE S OF A P P EL L AT E P RO CE DUR E. T O T HE S UP RE M E CO URT OF TEXAS AN D TH E H ON OR ABLE JUSTI CES THE REO F: STY LE O F TH E C ASE T h e st yle of th e case i n w h i ch certif i ca ti on i s m a d e is S ever an ce v. Patt ers on , N o. 0 7- 204 09, in the U n i t ed S t ates C ou rtof A pp eal s f

or t h e F i f

t h C i rcui t , on ap pea lf rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st r i c tC our t f

orthe Sout her n D i st r i c t of Texas

. Feder al j u ri sdi ct i on is based on vi ol ati on of federal const i t u t i on al ri gh t s.N o. 07- 20409

20 T h e F i f t h C i rcui t , on i t s ow n m ot i on , ha s deci ded t o cer t i f y t h ese qu est i on s t o t h e Ju st i ces of t h e Su prem e C ou rtof T exas. STA TE M EN T O F CA SE T h e p rece d i n g d i scu ssion i n this op i n i on articulates the fa cts r e l e va nt t o t he q ue s t i o ns c e r t i f i e d. L EGAL I S S UES Th e pre c edi ng di sc uss i on of T exas aut hor i t i es and t he Texas O p e n B e a c h e s A c t, T EX
. N AT
. R ES
. C ODE A NN
. § 6 1 .01 1 (a ) etse q , ( “ O B A ” ) , expl ai n s t h at t h ere i s n o con t rol l i n g T exas S u prem e C ou rt au t h ori t y f

or t h e cert i f

i ed questi on s an d n o consi st en t rat i on al e f or l ow er c ou rt s’deci si on s on t h ese questi on s.

QUEST I ONS CE RT I FI ED W e c er t i f

y t he f ol l ow i ng ques t i ons , w hi c h ar e es se nt i a l to d e te rm in in gth e co n stitu tion a l rea so n a b len e ss of th e se izu re of a rol l i n g easem en t over port i on s of S everan ce’ s bea chfr on t properti es, t o t h e Su prem e C ou rtof T exas: 1. D o e s Te xa s r e c o gni ze a “ rol l i n g” pu bl i c beac hf r o nt a c c e s s e a s e m e n t, i

. e. , a n e a s e m e n t in fa v o ro f th e p u b lic th a t a llo w s a c c e s s to a n d u s e o f th e b e a c h e s o n th e G u lf of M exi co, t h e bou n da ry of w h i ch easem en t m i grates s o l e l y acco r di ng t o na t ur al l y c aus e d c hang e s i n t he l oca ti on of

t h e vegetat i on l i n e, w i t h ou t proof of pr e s c r i pti o n, de di c at i o n o r c us t o m ar y r i ght s i n t he pr o pe r t y s o o c c upi e d? 2
. If T e x a s re c o g n iz e s s u c h a n e a s e m e n t, i s it d e r i v e d f

r o m c o mmo n l a w d o c t r i n e s o r fr o m a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

t h e OBA? 3. To w hat ex t ent , i f any, w oul d a lan d ow ner be e nt i t l e d t o r e c e i ve c o m pe ns at i on ( o t he r t han t he am ou n t al ready of

fe re d for rem oval of t h e hou ses) u n der T exas’ s l aw or C on st i t u t i on forthe l i m i t ati on s on u se of her property ef

fect ed by the l an dw ard m i grati onN o. 07- 20409

21 o f a r o llin ge a s e m e n t o n to p r o p e r ty o n w h ic h n o p u b lic easem en t ha s been f

ou n d by ded i cat i on , prescr i pti on , or c u s t o m? W e di sc l ai m any i nt ent i on o r des i r e t hat t he Suprem e Courtof Texas

c o nf i ne i t s r e pl y t o t he pr e c i s e f o r m o r s c o pe o f

t he q ue s t i o ns c e r t i f

i e d. V. F o r th e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e co n c lu d e th a t S e v e r a n c e ' s ta k in g s cla im is
p rem a tu re a n d w a s p rop erly d i sm i sse d b y th e d i stri ct cou rt, bu t t h e p rop ri ety

o f t he di s m i s s alo f

he r s e i zur e c l ai m de pe nds o n t he s t at e l aw ba s i s f o r t he seizu re, i m p l i ca ti n g issu es th a t w e m u st certi fy to t h e T ex a s S u p rem e C ou rt.

AFFI RM ED I N PART, QU ESTI ON S CERTI FI ED I N PART.N o. 07- 20409

W I E N E R , C i r c ui t Judge, di ss ent i ng:

W i t h genui ne r egar d and r es pec t f or m y c ol l eague s of t he panelm aj or i t y, I m u s t d is s e n t. I . CON TEXT Al t ho ugh und o ubt e dl y uni nt e nt i o nal l y, t he pa ne lm aj o r i t y t o da y ai ds a nd abet s t he qui xot i c adve nt ure of a Cal i f or ni a r es i dent w ho i s her e re pre se nt ed by
c o uns e lf

ur ni s he d g ra tis b y th e P a c if i c L e g a l F o u n d a t io n . (T h a t n o n -p r o fi t ’s publ i she d m i ss i on s t at em ent dec l ar es t hat i t s r ai so n d’ êt r e i ncl udes “ def end[ i ng] th e f u n d a m e n ta l h u m a n r ig h t o f p r iv a te p r o p e r ty ,” n o tin gth a t s u c h d e fe n s e is pa r to f

e ac h g e ne r at i o n’ s o bl i ga t i o n t o g uar d “ ag ai ns t g o ve r nm e nt
e n c r o a c h m e n t.” ) T h e re a l al ignm e ntbe t w ee n Sever ance and t he P ac i f i c Legal F ou n d a ti on i s n ot d i scer n a b l e from the reco rd on ap p ea l , bu t t h e rea l obj ectof th e s e C a lifo r n ia n s ’C e r v a n tia n tilt in ga t T e x a s ’s O p e n B e a c h e s A c t (“ O B A ”) is cl earl y n ot t o obtai n reasonab l e com pen sati on f or a t ak i n g o f p rop ert i es ei t h er a c t u a l l y o r nom i nal l y p u r c h a s e d b y S e v e r a n c e , b u t i s t o e v i s c e r a t e t h e OBA, preci sel y t h e ki n d of l egi sl ati o n t h at, by i t s ow n decl arati on , t h e F ou n da t i on ta r g e ts
. A n d i t m a tt e r s n o t w h e th e r M s . S e v e r a n c e ’ s ro le in th is litig a tio n is ge n u i n el y t hato f

t he fai r D ul c i ne a w ho s e di s t r e s s t he Fo unda t i o n c um kni ght
e r r ant w o ul d al l e vi at e o r , i ns t e ad , i s t r ul y t hato f s qui r e Sa nc ho Panz a as s i s t i ng t he F ounda t i o n c um D on Q u i xote t o achi eve i t s goal : E i t h er w ay, t h e pan el
m ajo r ity ’ s re v e r s a l o f th e d is tr ic t co u r t (w h o s e r u lin g s a g a in s t S e v e r a n c e I w o u ld
a ffir m ) h a s th e u n in t e n t i o n a l e ffe c t o f e n lis tin gth e fe d e r a l co u r ts a n d , v ia
c e r tific a tio n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s , a s u n w itt in gfo o t- s o l d i e r s in th is t h i n l y vei l ed L i bert ari an cr u sade. Itis w i t h i n this f ram ew ork t h at I shallseek t o d e m o n s t r a t e h o w th e p a n e l m ajo r it y m is s e s th e m a r k a n d w h y S e v e r a n c e ’s act i on shou l d b e d i sm i ssed, once an d f or al l , f or her l ack of

st an di n g t o asser t ei t h er a Fif

t h A m en dm en t tak i n gs cl ai m forreason able com pen sati on (becau seN o. 07- 20409

Th e di strict court di smissed Seve rance’s acti on pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P

. 1 2 (b)( 6). 1 Inmyopinio n, S everance h as no standin g to b rin g her c la im s wheth er ripe or not. Neverth eless, were sh e to be foun d to have standing , I would affirm the substantive de cisio n of th e di strict court, b eca us e s he h as i ndeed failed to state anycl aim on whichrelief canbe granted. 23 Sever ance has had not hi ng t ak en b y t he St at e ) o r a Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt
u n reasona bl e sei zure cl ai m (becau se t h at w h i ch w as pu t ati ve ly sei zed did not be l o ng t o Se ve r anc e a t t he t i m e ; and e ve n i f i t ha d, t he r e w as no t hi ng
u n re a so n a b le a b o u t th e p u rp o rte d se izu re ). 1 I I . OVERV I EW T h e p ane lm aj o r i t y unne c e s s ar i l y ap pr o ba t e s a ne w a ve nue o f a t t ack
a g a in s t t h e S ta te ’ s p o w e r o f e m in e n t d o m a i n ; fo r n o t o n ly is th e a n a ly s is in to d a y ’ s m ajorit y o p i n i on f u n d a m en tall y fl a w ed , bu t t h e p a n el m ajo r ity n e e d le s s ly t ak es on a qu est i on of const i t u t i on al si gn ifi ca n ce despi t e t h e avail abil i t y of pr ude nt i alg r o unds o n w hi c h t o de c i de t hi s ap pe al

. At bo t t o m , t he r e i s b ut o ne e a s e m e n t , a l b e it o n e w h o s e b o u n d a r ie s co u ld s h ift a n d h a v e s h ifte d

. T h u s , if t h ere e ve r w as a t ak i ng, t he r e w as but o ne
— and i t o c c ur r e d l o ng before Se ve r anc e a c qui r e d t i t l e t o t he pr o pe r t i e s . Ref us i ng t o a c c e ptt hi s t r ui s m , t he
m aj o r i t y o pi ni o n pr o c e e ds t o m i s i nt e r pr e t b o t h t h e T exas s t at ut e a t i s s ue a nd T ex a s ca se law

. A s a resu l t, i t i n corre ctl y h olds t h a t S ev era n ce ha s stan d i n g to asserther t ak i n gs cl ai m , w h en an d i f i t shou l d ever ri pen , as w el las her put at i ve s e i z ur e cl ai m . Com po undi ng t hate r r o r , t he m aj o r i t y bl ur s t he b o u n d a r ie s a n d co n fla te s th e e le m e n ts o f a F o u r th A m e n d m e n t s e iz u r e cla im and t ho s e o f

a Fi f t h Am e ndm e nt t ak i ngs c l ai m , t he n i gno r e s o ur pr e c e de nt a nd pro l o ngs t hi s m e r i t l e s s l i t i ga t i o n b y unne c e s s ar i l y c e r t i f yi ng que s t i o ns t o t he T ex a s S u p r e m e C ou rt. I ca n con cu r i n n eit h er th e rea son i n g o f th e m aj ority opi n i on nor i t s outc om e, w h i ch perm i t s Severan ce t o seek a ben ef i t based on pri or s t ate act i on to w h i ch she h as not onl y acceded a n d thereby f orf ei t ed orN o. 07- 20409

T EX . NAT . R ES . C ODE § 6 1 .0 1 1 (a) (Vern on2 0 0 9) (e mp h a si s a dd ed). 2 This is not a novelconcept. Courts havelongrecogniz ed that bou ndaries of pro perty 3 abuttin gwate rway s m ayshif t withth e mov em ent of th e wate r. See , e. g. , Lo u i si an a v. 24 w ai ved an y rel ated cl ai m , bu t f or w h i ch she h as presum ably been rem u n erat ed t hr o ugh a n i nt r i ns i c di m i nut i o n i n t he pur c has e pr i c e t hat s he pa i d when s he bo ugh t t he a l r e ad y bur de ne d b e ac hf r o nt l and

. III . F IF T H A M E N D M E N T T A K IN G S C L A IM I n t he hal f

c ent ury si nce t he Texas Legi sl at ure enac t ed t he O B A i n 1959, t he St at e ha s re c o gni z e d t he publ i c ’ s a bi l i t y t o a c qui r e — t hr o ugh pr e s c r i pt i o n, de di c at i o n o r r e t ai ne d r i ght— a n ea s e m e nt o ve r po r t i o ns o f t he dr y be ac h,
w h e th e r o r n o t p r iv a te ly o w n e d , a lo n gth e T e x a s G u l f C o a s t . A n d , it is
u n di spu t ed that t h e pu bl i c acqui red such an easem en t over t h e b each on w h i ch
s i t pr o pe r t i e s s ubs e que nt l y ac qui r e d by Sev e r anc e . The O BA st at e s i n r e l e va nt p a rt: ( a) It i s decl ared an d aff i rm ed to be the pu bl i c pol i cy of t hi s st at e t hat t he publ i c , i ndi vi dual l y and c ol l ec t i vel y, s hal l hav e t he f

r e e and unr e s t r i c t e d r i ghto f i ngr e s s a nd e gr e s s t o a nd f

r o m t he s t at e - o w ne d b e ac he s b o r de r i ng o n t h e s e a wa r d s h o r e o f t h e Gu l f

o f M e x i c o , o r i f

t he pu bl i c h as acqu i red a ri gh t of use or easem en t t o or over an are a bypr e s c r i pt i o n, de di c at i o n, o r ha s r e t ai ne d a r i ghtb y vi r t ue o f

c o nt i n u ous r i ghti n t he pub l i c , t he pu bl i c s h al lha ve t h e f ree and un re stri ct ed ri gh t of i ngr e s s a nd e gr e s s t o t he l ar ge r ar e a e xt e ndi ng f r o m t he l i n e of m ean l ow t i de t o the l i n e of veget ati on b o r de r i ng on t h e G u l f

of M exi co. 2 T h e l an gu age m ak es c l ear ( an d an y dou bt th a t m ight hav e l i n gered h as been
r em ove d by l at erl egi sl at i on and t he c on si st ent hol di ngs of t he Texas i n t erm edi ate ap pel l ate courts ) tha t the l an dw ard border of t h i s easem en t i s not
an d can n ot be perm an en t l y fixed. Th at boun da ry i s i den t i f i ed as the “ l i n e of 3N o. 07- 20409

Mississippi , 51 6 U .S. 22 , 25 , 11 6 S . C t. 2 90 ( 19 95 ) ( r eferrin g to the rul e of “th alweg ,” which hol ds tha tariv e rb o u n d aryb e t we e ns t at e sli e sal o n gth em ai nd o wn s t r e a mn avi g at ion cha nne l and “move s as the cha nne l chan ge s with the gra dualpro cesses o f ero s ion an d a cc re ti on”) ; Georgia v. Sout h Caro lina , 49 7 U .S. 37 6, 403 -04, 110S. Ct. 290 3 (1 990) (“Wh en the bed is cha nged by the natural and gra dualpro cesses kno wn a s ero sionan d ac creti on, the b ou n dary fo llow s th e v aryin gc ours e of th e stre a m.”); Ne b raska v. I ow a , 14 3 U .S. 35 9, 3 60, 12 S. C t. 3 96 (189 2) (“It is settle d law that whe n grants o f land borde r onru nningwate r, a nd the banks are cha nged b y that [gradu al] process known as ‘ accre tion ,’ th e ripari an owner’ s bou ndary lin e still remains t he s trea m, althou gh , during th e years, bythis accretion, the actu al areaof his possession s mayv ary”; co ntra sting “accretion” with “avulsi on,” whichh olds that th e b oun darydoe s not shift if the water cha nne l shifts co urse suddenly .). That the lin e cont emplat ed in the Tex as OBA sho ul dl ik ew ise shift, alb eit base d onn ature’s relo cati on of th e v eget ati onlin e rath erth a nashif tin gwate rc ours e, i s adif fe re n cewith out di stinctio n . Act of May 24, 198 5, 6 9thL eg ., R .S., ch . 35 0, § 1, 198 5 T ex . Gen. Laws 141 9 (c odifi ed 4 a s T EX . NAT . R ES . C ODE § 6 1 .0 2 5(Vern on2 0 0 9))

.

See , e. g. , Arringto n v. Mat tox , 76 7 S .W.2d 957(T ex . App.—Au stin 198 9, writ denied) 5 (“pub lic right of u se or easement migr ates and move s lan dward o r seaward withth e n atural mov em entso f th e n atural lin e of v eget ati on a n d th e lin e of me a n lo w tid e”); F einman v. State , 717S.W.2 d 10 6, 111 (Tex. App.—Hou ston[1 st D ist.] 1986 , w rit ref’d n.r.e.) (“we conclu ded th at th e v eget ati onlin e isn otst atio narya n d th at ar ollin ge a se me nt isi mp licit inth e Act”) ; M a t c h av . M

a t t ox , 7 11 S.W .2d95, 99 (Tex. App. —Aus tin 1986, wri t ref ’d n. r. e.) (“Alt hough thesebo und arie s do tend to shift occa sion ally, theyca n be determined at anygiven point i n 25 vegetati on , ” w h i ch, gi ven t h e vaga ri es of na t u re, w i l l a lw ays be i n a st ate of in te r m itt e n t flu x . The pr ac t i c al and l e ga l e f fe c t o f t hi s s hi f

t i ng bo unda r y i s t hatt he r e i s a nd
r e m ai ns o nl y a s i ngl e e as e m e nt of pu bl i c a c c e s s t o t he b e ac h. Shi f t s i n t he vegetati on l i n e do n ot cr eate new ea sem en t s; rather t h ey exp an d ( or, i n t h e case o f s e a war d s hi f

t s , r e d uc e ) t he s i z e an d r e a c h o f t ha t on e d y na m i c e a s e m e nt
. To
c o ns t r ue the vegetat i o n l i ne a s e ve r ha vi ng be e n a f i xe d p o i nt i gno r e s ( 1) t he pl ai n esti n t erpret ati on of t h e un am bi gu ou s s t atutor y langu age, ( 2) l ater l egi sl at i on t hat r eas se r t s t hi s pri nci pl e, ( 3 ) the eas e w i t h w hi c h t he Texas 4 L egi sl ature coul d h ave, ha d i t w an t ed to, f i xed t h e easem en t ’ s boun da ry per m anent l y by spe c i f yi ng a f

i xed dat e a t w h i ch to s ett he l i ne, ( 4) i n t erpret a ti on s of

t h e T exas courts , an d ( 5) our ow n pri or ackn ow l edg m en t of 5N o. 07- 20409

ti me . Th e ruleh a s b ee ne st ab li sh ed th at ea se me ntsmayshif t fromtim e totim e. ”) ; Mo od y v. Whi te , 5 9 3S.W .2 d 37 2 , 37 9(T ex . C iv . App .— C orpu s C hri sti 1 9 7 9 , n o writ) ( sa me); cf. Seaway Co. v. At to rneyGeneral , 3 7 5S .W .2 d 9 2 3 , 93 9(T ex . C iv

. App .—Ho u st on1 9 6 4 , writ re f’ d n .r .e .) (evidence d emonstr ates ve ge tati on lin e h as b eenstab le f or20 0 years and canbeea sily de te rm in ed).

We have twic e stated this rul e. In Mikesk a v. Cityof Galvesto n , we said, with 6 refere nce to the OBA, “[d]ue to shifts of th e vegetation lin e and the erosio n of th e sh oreline , the natural de marcationlines are not static

. . . the legal bou ndaries of th e public ea sement change w ith the ir phys icalcounte rp art s. ” 451 F.3d 376, 378 (5t h Cir. 2006) (c itin g Fein man , 717 S.W.2d at 110 -11). An d, in Hi rtz v . State , w e stated thatbe cau se of the OBA’ s defi nition of the lan dward boun daryof a b eachea sement as “the lin e o f vegetation” “thelo cati on of th e ea se me nt shif

tsa s th e v eget ati onlin e shif ts .” 9 7 4F .2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 4( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2 ). Severance appeal s onlyth e di spositio n of her clai ms as t o th e e ffect of th e e asement 7 itself onh er l and qua lan d. S he does not appealth e rulin gs onh er clai ms as t o th e co n de mn ati ono f th e im provem entso nth e prop erti es .

Severance i s a realestate b roker lice nsed in Tex as; she would have difficultycl aimi ng 8 th at sh e di d n otknowth e im po rto f wh at sh e wa s s ignin g . 26 th is p h e n o m e n o n . D e sp ite all of th is, th e m ajor ityd e cla re s th a t w ith ea ch sh ift 6
o f t he v e ge t at i o n l i ne , a ne w e as e m e nt i s b o r n. I c anno t a gr e e . The r e i s a nd al w ay s ha s b e e n o ne and o nl y o ne e as e m e nt ; a nd t hate as e m e nt a l r e ad y en cum bered the e n t i ret y of Sev eran ce’ s l an d at t h e t i m e she bou gh t i t , even th o u g h th e e a s e m e n t’s m a x im u m e ffe c t a n d co v e r a g e re m a in e d in c h o a te w h ile t he ve get at i on l i ne l ay s eaw ar d of herpr ope r t y. 7 S everan ce has conceded t h at t h e easem en t w as esta b l i shed over t h e dry b ea ch on w h i ch h er pro p erty sit s p ri or t o he r p u rch a se. B u t ev en i f sh e h a d n ot, t hat fac t i s beyo nd debat e: ( 1) Th e pro per t y w as i dent i f i ed f orc ondem nat i on as earl y as 199 9 becau se i t h ad en croached on t h e dry beach som e si x years bef ore he r pur c has e , ( 2) s he ha d t o s i gn a s t at e m e nt w h en sh e t o o k t i t l e t o t he l and
ac k n o wl e d g i n g t h e e a s e m e n t a n d i t s f u l l p o t e n t i a l e f

fe c t , a n d ( 3 ) a t l e as t o ne 8 T exas court h ad f

ou n d there t o be an easem en t across t h at exactst ret ch of beachN o. 07- 20409

Fein man , 7 1 7S .W .2 d at 1 1 2 -1 3
. 9 Likewise, th e public re tain s onlyth e ri ght of acce ss until the ve ge tati on lin e mi ght 10 a g ainr oll se awardan d of f of S ever a n ce ’sp ro pe rty . See , e. g. , Daniel v. Cou nt y of Santa Barbara , 28 8 F .3d 3 75, 383( 9thC ir. 2 002 ) 11 (“Und e re s t ab li s h e df e d e r all aw, at akin go c c u r swh e na no p t i o nt ot akea ne a s e m e ntis grante d, n otwh enth e op ti oni s e x erci se d. ”)

.

See , e. g. , Kaiser Aetna v. U nited States , 4 4 4 U. S. 1 6 4 , 1 7 6 , 1 0 0S

. C t. 3 8 3( 1 9 7 9) (a 12 lan downer’ s ri gh tt o ex c lu d e o ther s from his lan d is “oneof the most essentialstic ks in the bun dle of ri ghts th at are commonly characte riz ed as pro perty .”). S everance r etains title to and dom inion overher pro perty.

See , e. g. , Palazzolo v. Rh ode Is land , 5 3 3 U

. S

. 6 0 6 , 6 2 8 , 121 S. Ct. 2448 (20 01). In 13 P alazzo lo , th e Supreme Court stated thatn oticeatth e ti me of acquisitiondoe s no t alon e strip a propertyowne r of the ab ility to conte st an easement’s effect o n his property rights. 533U.S. at6 2 7

- 2 8
. B u tth ee a s e m e ntac r o s sS ev e r a n c e ’ sp r o p e rtyi sdi s t i n c tf r o mth el a n d -u se 27 p u r s u a n t t o t h e OBA. Se ve r anc e c anno t di s put e t hatw he n s he b o ugh t t he l and , 9 she d i d n ot acqu i re an y ri gh t t o excl u de t h e pu bl i c f rom an y porti on t h at i s dry beach

. A l t h ou gh she coul d excl u de the pu bl i c f rom t h ose p art s of

her properti es th a t a t a n y g iv e n tim e la y la n d w a r d o f th e v e g e ta tio n lin e , s h e c o u ld d o s o o n ly unt i lt hatl i ne s hi f

t e d f ur t he r i nl and

. 10 I a gr e e w i t h t he m aj o r i t y t hatt he pr o pe r t y r i ghta t i s s ue he r e i s t he “ r i ght t o e x c lu d e ” m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b li c fr o m t h e d r y b e a c h p o r t io n o f S e v e r a n c e ’s la n d

. But Se v e r anc e ne v e ro w ne d t hi s r ight , s o s h e o b v io u s ly ca n n o t n o w cla im 11 th a t w h a t s h e n e v e r o w n e d h a s b e e n ta k e n fr o m h e r . T h e S ta te h a d ta k e n th is

“ st i ck” f rom t h e bu n dl e of

ri gh t s c om pri si n g o w n e rs h i p of t h e l an d l on g bef

ore S ev e r a n c e e v er a cq u i red ti tl e to th e p rop erties. S ev era n ce’ s l eg a lri gh t t o 12
exc l ude t he publ i c f

r om her l and per t ai ned onl y u n tilthe vegetati on li n e shi f t ed l a n d w ard; t h e H u rri can e R i t a- rel ated shi f t m erel y gav e a new f oot pri n t t o a t ak i ng t hatha d o c c ur r e d l o ng be f o r e he r o w ne r s hi p c o m m e nc e d. 13N o. 07- 20409

restric tionin P

alazzo lo . I n that ca se th e e ffect, if any, of th e l and-u se re stricti on on the property owner’ s rights c oul d n ot b e known until the property owner atte mpted todevelophis lan d a n d th e governin gbo ard , inth at ca se , de nie d hisapp licati on . Id . at61 4-15 , 61 8-19 , 62 7- 28. I n the instant case, the effect of th e e asement encumbe rin g Severance’s propertyis and alway s has been clear: She cannot exclude thepublic fro m thedrybe achportionof her lan d, an areath at shifts over time. She knew the possessory effect of th e e asement at th e ti me she purch a se d th e prop erti es . Th e ma

j oritywo u ldb ol st eritsapp ro achb yse ein gc onfu si oni nth e T ex a s c a sel aw. 14 But it i s themaj orityth at appears to confu s e t he q ue s t ionof the effect of th e e asement’s “rolling” b oun darywiththe questi on of how many easements ar e at work: T ex as co urts might di sa gre e ab out th e fo rm er , b u t n otab out th e latt er .

In deed, this court h as co nside red clai ms similar toSeverance’s after previou s maj or 15 st or ms cau se d dr a matic shif tsi nth e v eget ati onli n e alo n gth e T ex a s G u lf C oa st
. Mi k es k a v. Cit y of Galveston , 4 5 1 F .3 d 3 7 6 , 3 7 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6) (Tro pical St or m Fran ce s in1 9 9 8); Hi rtz v. State , 9 7 4 F .2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 4( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( Hurric a n e Alici ai n1 9 8 3a n d “f ie rc e sp rin gst or ms” in1 9 8 8). Th e pa n el ma j ority ign or es th e ob vio u s im plic ati on of it s h ol di n g : I f th e St atemu st 16 payfor a n ew takingwitheach lan dward shift, surelyth e propertyowne r must payrea sonable compen satio n to the Stateto buyback hi s right to exclu de the public with each seaward shift. 28 T h e m aj o r i t y’ s a ppr o ac h percei ves t h e bi rt h of a bran d n ew easem en t every t i m e t he ve ge t at i o n l i ne s hi f t s , a r e s ul t I v i e w a s a l e ga li m po s s i bi l i t y. The l i ne 14 of veget at i on, even t hough re l at i vel y s t abl e pe r haps, i s al w ays s ubj ec t t o f l ux, as
n at ur e i s w o nt t o b e . Fur t he r m o r e , t he v e ge t at i o n l i ne c an m o ve e i t her 15 l and w ar d orse awar d f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . The m aj o r i t y’ s a nal ys i s , w hi c h s e e s t he p oss i b i l i ty of i n fi n i te m i n i -t a k i n gs i m p l i ci t i n th e sta tu tory l a n gu a ge , ap p ea rs to
assum e t h at t h e vegetat i on li n e m oves onl y l an dw ard, f or i t fai l s t o accoun t f or h ow a p rop erty ow n er m a y re cl a i m h i s l a n d a s a resu l t of a se a w a rd sh i ft

. 16 R a th er th a n i n terp reting the p l a i n l y w ord ed statu te a t face v a l u e, th e m aj ority op ts for a m ore con vo l u ted rea d i n g, on e th a t, i f a ccu ra te, w ou l d m i re th e S tate i n t he a b s ur d i t y o f

e nd l e s s l i t i g a t i o n o v e r a n i nf i ni t e n um b e r o f

i nf i ni t es i m al
a c c r e tio n s to th e d r y b e a c h

.N o. 07- 20409

Act of May 24 , 1985 , 69th Leg ., R .S., ch . 35 0, § 1, 198 5 T ex . Gen. Laws 141 9 (c odifi ed 17 a s T EX . NAT . R ES . C ODE § 6 1 .0 2 5(Vern on2 0 0 9))

.

Id

. (allc a pital le tt er s- em ph a si s r em oved ; em ph a si s a dd ed). 18 533U.S. 606 , 62 8, 1 21 S. C t. 2 448(20 01 ) ( injury occurs atth e ti me th e takingis 19 effecte d). At a nyrate, S everance did not pay for the pr op er t y inte rest, th e takingof which wo u ldh av e b ee nr ef

le ct edi na ni ntrin sic di sc ou nt onth e purch ase price , whichsh e, a s a w illing buye r, paid h er willin g selle r, b oth beingfullyinformed of th e OBA byvirtu e o f th e 1 9 8 5 Act
. See infran ote 21. Sh e to ok a calc ulated risk whenshebo ught the property, paying less in the knowledge th at her legal right to e xclude the public from th e l and was li mited. 29 H ad t he Te x a s Le g i s l a t ur e i nt e nd e d s uc h a r e s ul t , i t e a s i l y c o ul d have fi xe d the ex trem e of the l a n d w a rd bo u n d a ry o f th e ea sem en t. In stea d , th e S tate b orro w ed from th e fam i l i a r c om m on law a p p roa ch to p rop erty l i n es e xp ected to flu c tu a te o v e r tim e . W e r e t h e r e a n y r e m a in in gd o u b t a s to th e re s u lt o r ig in a lly i n t en ded by the L egi sl ature, t h e l aw m ak ers pu t i t t o res t i n 1 9 8 5 w h en t h ey p a sse d l eg i slati on ( th e “ 1 9 8 5 A ct”) m a n d a ti n g t h a t sel l ers o f b ea ch fron t pro p erty i n f orm b u yers of

the O B A ’ s easem en t
. T h e 1 985 A ctst ates: “ S t ructures erect ed 17
se a w a rd o f th e v e g e ta tion lin e (o r o th e r a p p li ca b le e a se m e n t b o u n d a ry ) o rt hat becom e s eaw ard of

t h e veget ati on l i n e as a r esul t of n atural proces ses are subj ect t o a l aw sui t by the st ate of T exas to rem ove th e s tru ctu res. ” Th e 198 5 A ct 18
m a k es p ell u ci d tha t on ce a n ea sem en t on the d r y b ea ch i s esta b l i sh ed , i ts l a n d w a rd bo u n d a ry m a y th ere fore “roll , ” in clu d ingov erp riv a te p rop er ty
. A c o r r e c t de t e r m i nat i o n whet he r t he r e w as o ne e as e m e nt o r m any i s t he key to the st an di n g an al ysi s i n this case. U n der t h e Pal azz o l o v . Rhode I s l and ph ysi cal

- t ak i n g an al ysi s — w h i ch the m aj ori t y pu rport s t o em pl oy — Sev eran ce l acks st an di n g t o bri n g a F i f t h A m en dm en t cl ai m b ecau se any t ak i n g occurred pr i o r t o her200 5 pur c has e of t he pr o pe r t y. The m aj o r i t y ne ve r t he l e s s r e as o ns 19 th a t th e ru le o f Palazzolo does n ot dep ri ve S everan ce of st an di n g becau se, w h enN o. 07- 20409

Th e litany of sto rms that h ave h ammered and at times totallyinund ated Galveston 20 Islan d, f ro m “I sa a c’ s S to rm” i n1 9 0 1 thr o u ghH u rri c a n eI kei n2 0 0 8 , thr e eye ar saf t e rRita, le av esn o do ub t. See , e. g. , E rik L ars on , Is aac’s Storm(Ra n do m H ou se1 9 9 9); see a lso supran ote 15.

L u cas v. S. C

ar . C oastal C ou n ci l , 50 5 U .S. 10 03, 102 8-29 , 11 2 S . C t. 2 886(19 92) 21 (s ever e li mitati on s o nl a n d u semu st“i nh er e i nth e titl e its elf, ” a ddre ssin gr egu lato ryt aki n g); see a lso Dan iel v. Cou nt y of Santa Barbara , 2 8 8 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 3( 9 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); United States v. 30.54 Ac res of Land , 90 F.3d 790 , 79 2 (3 d C ir. 1 996) (pre-e xi sting li mitation on lan downer’ s titlewas not atakingwhenth e governme nt choseto ex erciseit s right). E ve n if Icould a gre e that apro pertyowne r might be abl e tocontend that th ere is a new takin g when he coul d n ot h av e kn ow no f a ne a se me nt’ s p ot enti al ef fe cto nhisla n d, S ever a n cec a nmaken o su chc laim

. Sixyears befo re sh e b ought her properties, the State had conde mned them for encroaching on the public beach easement. Furthe rmore, Severance h as b een c om pensated fo r th e mi ssing“ri ght toexclu de” thr ough an intri nsi c dim inuti on in her pur chas e pri ce, and ther efo re has suff ere d no injury. Cars on Harbor Village Lt d. v. Cit y of C arson , 37 F.3 d 468 , 476 (9thC ir. 1 994) (“The pricepai d for the property p r es umab lyrefl ected the market valueof the property minu s theinterests take n .”) , overru led on ot her gro unds by W MX Tech ., I

nc. v. Miller , 10 4 F .3d 1 133(9th Cir. 1 9 9 7) (e nb a n c) ; see a lso Daniel , 2 8 8F .3 d at 3 8 3
. 30 s he b o u g h t t h e l a n d , t h e e a s e m e n t h a d n o t a t t a c h e d t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e l and t h at w as l ateraf

fect ed by H u rri can e R i t a. A s exp l ai n ed above, t h i s s i m pl y i s not
so : Se v e r a nc e ’ s e nt i r e p r o p e r t y was e nc um b e r e d b y t he e a s e m e nt ’ s v e r y r e al p oten ti a l i ty — an d pr ed i ctab i l i ty — tha t t h e v eg eta ti on l i n e w ou l d sh i ft

. 20 Si m pl y put , a pr e- exi st i ng r es t r i c t i on s uch as t hi s c annot be a new t aki ng. 21 In s u m , th e m ajo r ity ’ s fla w e d m u ltip le -e a s e m e n t a n a ly s is in fe c tio u s ly p erv a d es it s en ti re d i sp ositi on of th i s ca se. S ev era n ce d oe s n ot h a ve stan d i n g to asserta cl ai m f

or reasona bl e com pen sati on un der t h e F i f t h A m en dm en t becau se s he ha s s uf

fe r e d no i nj ur y, any t ak i ng hav i ng o c c ur r e d b e f o r e s he e ve r o w ne d t he l an d. Th e S t ate assert s on l y a ri gh t t h at i t ha d alr ead y acqu i red. N ot onl y does t he panelm aj or i t y f ol l ow t hi s pri m r os e f l aw t o t he e r r oneo us c onc l usi on t hat Sever ance has st andi ng; i t al so re l i es t her eo n t o c onc l ude t hat ev en t hough Se ve r anc e ’ s c l ai m i s unr i pe no w , i t w i l lr i pe n i n t he f ut ure, a t w hi c h po i nt s heN o. 07- 20409

Liverpo ol, N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. v. E m igr a ti onC om’rs , 11 3 U .S. 33 , 39 , 5 S. C t. 3 52 22 (1 8 8 5 ); see a lso Greater New Orleans Bro ad. Ass’n, In c. v. Un ited States , 52 7 U .S. 17 3, 1 84, 119 S. C t. 1 923(19 99) (“Itis, however, an estab lish ed part o f our co nstitution al jurispru denceth at we do not ordin arily reach out to make n ovel or unn ecessarilybroad prono unc ement s on co n stitu ti on al is su eswh enac a sec a nb e full yr es olv edo nan arrow ergro u n d. ”) ; Wo od v . Geo rgia , 450 U. S. 2 6 1 , 2 65-6 6, 101 S. Ct. 1097 (19 81) (cit ing S pe ctor Mo t or Ser v. , I n c. v . McLau gh li n , 3 2 3U .S

. 1 0 1 , 1 0 5 , 6 5S

. C t. 1 5 2 ( 1 9 4 4)) ; United States v. Raines , 36 2 U .S. 17 , 21 , 8 0S

. C t. 5 1 9( 1 9 6 0). 31 m ay r et urn w i t h a val i d F i f t h A m endm ent cl ai m . B ut S eve r ance ’ s ow n per so nal t a k i n g s c l a i m n e v e r wa s r i pe and c an n e v e r b e r i p e b e c a u s e t h e o n l y OBA t ak i ngs c l ai m r e l at e d t o t he l and s he no w o w ns r i pe ne d l o ng be f o r e s he b o ugh t i t and w as al l ow ed t o shr i vel on t he vi ne by t he one w ho o w ned t he pr ope r t y at t h e t i m e the easem en t took ef fecton the l an d. B y t h e ti m e S everan ce purch ased th e p r o p e r tie s , a n y ta k in g s c la im h a d lo n gs in c e ce a s e d to e x is t a n d th u s co u ld
n o l on ger be acqu i red by h er oran yon e el se. I t w ou l d be p erverse t o all ow S everan ce back i n t o court on her prof fered t ak i n gs cl ai m , now or i n t h e f u t u re. I V. F OURTH AM ENDM ENT S EI Z URE In perm i t t i n g S everan ce’ s Fou rt h A m en dm en t cl ai m t o proceed an d then p u tti n g iton h old b y certi fyi n g qu estion s a b ou t i t to th e T ex a s S u p rem e C ou rt, t he m aj or i t y vi ol at es one i m por t ant aspec t of t he ve ner abl e pr i nci pl e o f j udi c i al
r e s tr a in t, vi z. , d e c id in ga c a s e o n co n s tit u tio n a l g r o u n d s w h e n th e s a m e re s u lt i s av a i l a b l e on n on -con sti tu ti on a lgro u n d s. A l th ou gh in m y v ie w , the F ou rth A m e n d m e n t is w h o lly in a p p lic a b le to S e v e r a n c e ’ s c la im , w e n e e d n o t a n d s h o u ld
n o t r e a c h t h i s q u e s t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a lma g n i t u d e . I t i s e l e me n t a lt h a t we
m us t ne i t he r “ ant i c i pa t e a q ue s t i o n o f c o ns t i t ut i o nall aw i n a dv ance of t he
nec es si t y o f dec i di ng i t ; [ nor ] f or m ul at e a r ul e o f

c ons t i t ut i onall aw br oade r t han i s requi r e d b y t he pr e c i s e fac t s t o w hi c h i t i s t o b e a ppl i e d. ” I n o pe ni ng t he 22N o. 07- 20409

United States v. Jacob sen , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 , 1 0 4 S

. C t
. 1 6 5 2 ( 1 9 84) (empha sis 23 added). Th e majo rity reli es heavilyon Jacob sen ’s definitionof seiz ure, ye t re fuses t o seeth at the cas e cannotsupp ortthe major ity’s Fourth Am endm ent- rela tedholdin g. 32 cou rts’do ors to F ou rth A m en d m en t rel i ef f or p rev i ou sly f

ru strate d F i ft h A m en dm en t t ak i n gs cl ai m an t s, t h e m aj ori t y t oda y con t raven es bot h of t h ese
m a x im s o f lim ite d s c o p e . It s e r r o n e o u s a n a ly s is o f th e e a s e m e n t, sup ra , f orces i t t o o ver l oo k th e o bvi ous c onc l usi on t hat Seve r ance l ac ks st andi ng t o b r i ng a F o u r t h A me n d me n t c l a i m, j u s t a s s h e d o e s t o b r i n ga F i f t h A me n d me n t c l a i m. A dd i t i on al l y, the m aj ori t y i gn ores t h at even if w e w ere to assum e argu end o t hat t h e F ou rt h A m e n d m e n t co u ld so m e h o w p ro v i de rel i ef un der t h ese c i rcum st an ces, Sever ance ’ s c l ai m w oul d fai lon t he m er i t s a n d the di st r i c t c our t ’ s di sm i ss al
w ou l d h a ve to be aff i rm ed

. U l ti m a tel y, ho w ev er, th e m aj ority’ s F ou rth A m endm e nta nal ys i s j u stgoes t oo far, i m properl y coun t en an ci n g t h e app l i cat i on of t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t i n t h i s t extbook F i f t h A m en dm en t t ak i n gs case. A f t er al l , t h e F ou rt h an d F i f t h am en dm en t s are comple m entary , n ot dup l i c at i ve . A. St andi ng A s an i n i ti a l m a tter th a t sh ou l d en d a l l th i s, S ev era n ce’ s p u tati ve F ou rth A m en d m en t sei zu re cl a i m , l i k e he r tak i n gs cl a i m u n d er th e F i ft h A m en d m en t,
m us t b e r ej e c t e d f

o r l ac k o f

s t and i ng. The Supr e m e Cour t i n Un it ed S tate s v. Jac o bs e n defi n ed a “sei zure” f or p u rp oses of

t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t as a

“ m ean i n gf

u li n t erf

erence w ith an i n di vi du al ’ s posses sory in te r e s ts in h is property. ” Th i s def i n i t i on al on e i s s u f

f i ci en t t o de feat S everan ce’ s s ei zure 23
c l ai m , f o r t he r e c an hav e b e e n no m e ani ngf uli nt e r fe r e nc e w i t h a pr o pe r t y r i ght t hatha s ne ve r b e l o nged t o Se ve r anc e . U nl i ke he r pr e de c e s s o r i n t i t l e w ho
ow n ed t h e properti es w h en t h e pu bl i c’ s easem en t att ach ed, Sev eran ce has n everN o. 07- 20409

Th e T akin gs Clause states: “. . . nor shallprivate propertybe taken for public u se, 24 without ju st compen satio n.” U.S. C ON ST . a me n d. V

. FirstEng lish Evan gelica l L ut heran Ch u rc hof Gle n dale v. LosA n gelesC ou n t y, C al

. , 4 8 2 U .S

. 3 0 4 , 3 1 4 , 1 0 7S

. C t. 2 3 7 8( 1 9 8 7). Kelo v. Cityof New London, Con n. , 5 4 5 U

. S

. 4 6 9 , 4 8 7 n . 1 9 , 1 2 5 S

. C t
. 2 655 (20 05) 25 (quo ting E. En te rs. v. Apfel , 52 4 U .S. 49 8, 5 45, 11 8 S . C t. 2 131 (19 98) (Kenne dy, J., co ncurrin g in ju dgment a nd dissentinginpart)). Inan alyzi ngth e proprie ty of ataking , th e co urts are de fe re nti al toth e “l egis lativ e j u dgme nts” at is su e. Id

. at 4 8 0
. 33 h eld th e “ri gh t t o ex cl u d e” m em b ers o f th e p u b l i c f rom a n y pa rt of h er p rop erty t h at consti t u t es dry bea ch. Th u s t h e State’ s enf orcem en t of

t h e pu bl i c’ s acc ess t o t he b e ac h do e s no t i nt e r fe r e w i t h o r e ve n di m i ni s h

— do e s no t “ s e i z e ” — a ny p oss ess ory i n teres t belon gin g to S ev era n ce. N e v er h a vin g h a d the ri gh t t o excl u de the pu bl i c f

rom t h e dry beach , Sev eran ce has suff ered no i n

j u ry a nd t hus h a s n o sta n d i n g — a q u i n tesse n ti a lex a m p l e of “no h a rm , n o fou l

. ” B. Appl i c ab i l i t y o f t he Four t h Am e ndm e nt W e m u st at al l t i m es rem ai n m i n dful t h at i t i s t h e Fif t h A m en dm en t , not th e F ou rt h , t h at prot ect s an i n di vi du al ’ s r i gh t t o o wn pr op erty w h ile
a c k n o w le d g in gth e S ta te ’ s co n c o m ita n t r ig h t t o a c q u ir e p r iv a te p r o p e r ty , a lb e it unde r c ar e f

ul l y c ur t ai l e d c o ndi t i o ns : ( 1) The i n t e nde d us e m us t b e pub l i c , a nd (2 ) th e o w n e r m u s t b e ju s tly co m p e n s a te d

. “T h e T a k in g s C la u s e la r g e ly 24

‘ o p e r a te s a s a co n d itio n a l lim ita tio n , p e r m it t i n g t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o d o w h a t it
w an t s s o l on g a s i t pay s t h e charge. ’ ” I n contr ast, t h e Four t h Am e ndm e nt 25 p r o te c ts , in tera lia , an i n di vi du al ’ s r i gh tt o posses s pr op erty tha t he con ti n u es toN o. 07- 20409

U. S. C ON ST . a me n d. IV ; see a lso J acobs en , 466 U.S. at 1 13. Th e Fourth Amen dment 26 reads, in relevant part: “Th e ri ght of the peopl e to be secure in their pe rsons, hou ses, pape rs and effec t s , against u nrea sonablesearche s an d sei zures . . . .” The Fourth and the Fifth Ame n dm ent we rema deapp licab l etoth e st ate s thro u ghth e F ourt ee nthAme n dm ent. See , e. g. , Ke lo , 5 4 5 U. S. at 4 7 2 n .1 ( Fif thAme n dm ent) ; Ma

ppv . Oh io , 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S. Ct. 168 4 (1 9 6 1 ) (FourthAme n dm ent)

.

FirstEng lish Evan

gelica l L ut heranC

hurch , 4 8 2 U .S

. at 3 1 4 -1 5 ; see a lso Ke lo , 54 5 27 U. S. at 4 8 9 -9 0 ; Ke lo , 5 4 5U

. S

. at49 7 ( O ’C on nor, J., dissenting). This is atra de-off the Fra me rs ’ sa n ctio n ed

. Monon gah ela Nav. Co. v. United States , 14 8 U .S. 31 2, 3 25, 13 S. C t. 6 22 (189 3) (“it prevents the public from l oad in g uponon e individual mo re thanhis j ust sh are of th e b u rd en s o f govern me nt”).

Obviously, the existence o f a warrant b ased on probable cau se will be suffici ent. U.S. 28 C ON ST . am end. IV. 34 o wn . Th e State m ay n ot i n t erf ere w i t h possess i on of p riv a t e property un l ess 26 i t s m an n er of

doi n g so i s re a so n a b le

. Eve n t ho ugh s o m e a s pe c t s o f t he Fo ur t h a nd Fi f

t h a m e ndm e nt s m i ght overl ap , t h ey provi de d i st i n ctprot ect i on s and i m pose di st i n ctrequi rem en t s on t h e governm en t
. Th e sei zure cl au se of t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t p rot ect s agai n st
u n reasona bl e i n t erf

erence w i t h p osses si on , requ i ri n g n ei t h er com pen sati on nor pu bl i c use, w h i l e t h e T ak i n gs C l au se of t h e F i f t h A m en dm en t prot ect s agai n st p h y s ic a l o c c u p a tio n , tr a n s fe r o f tit le , a n d th e e lim in a tio n o f a ll e c o n o m ic a lly be ne f i c i alus e b ut do e s notco nt ai n t he l ang uag e o f r e as o nab l e ne s s . Rat he r , t he Taki ngs Cl aus e i m pl i e s t hati f j us t c o m pe ns at i o n i s pa i d and t he pur po s e o f t he t ak i n g i s pu bl i c u se, t h en i t f ol l ow s t h at t h e t ak in g is re a so n able per s e . 27 C on ver s e l y, t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt r e qui r e s o nl y r e as o nab l e ne s s w he n t he S ta te in te r fe r e s w ith p o s s e s s io n . T h e S ta te m a y ju s tify a s e iz u r e a s re a s o n a b le i n a num be r o f

w ay s , ne ar l y al l of w hi c h ha ve b e e n i de nt i f i e d wi t hi n t he 28N o. 07- 20409

Te rr y v. Oh io , 3 9 2 U. S. 1 , 2 0 -2 2 , 2 4 , 8 8S

. C t. 1 8 6 8( 1 9 6 8); see a lso Gates v. Tex. Dep’t 29 of P rotect ive &Re

gu lato ry Servs. , 537 F.3 d 404 , 429 (5th Cir. 200 8) (exig en tci r c ums tances such as i mminent da nger o f physic al or se xu al abu se may ju stifysei zi nga child from his pare ntswith out awarr a nt) ; U nited States v. Sh ann on , 21 F .3d 7 7, 8 2 (1 994) (“The exigent circu mstance s that must exist include: h otp ur suit of asuspe cted felon ; th e po ssibilityth at evidencemayb e re mov edo r de stro y ed ; a n d da n gert o th e liv eso f of fice rso r oth er s.”). Minnes ota v. Dick erson , 50 8 U .S. 36 6, 375 -76, 113S. Ct. 213 0 (1 993) (“if the obj ect 30 is co ntraban d, its warrantless seiz ure would be ju stifiedbyth e sa me practical c onsi deration s th at inh er e inth e pl ain -vie w c onte xt”); Carroll v. Un ited States , 26 7 U .S. 13 2, 1 49, 45 S. C t. 2 8 0( 1 9 2 5 ) (s earcha n d se iz u reo f v ehicle v ali d if re a so n ab le b elie f th at it co ntain s c ontr ab a n d)

.

United State sv. Ra m sey , 43 1 U .S. 60 6, 6 16, 97 S. C t. 1 972(19 77) (inspe ction s of 31 person s enterin g the countryar e “r eason abl e si mply byvirtu e of the fact that th eyocc ur at the b or de r”). Hodel v. Va. Surface Min. &Re clamatio n Ass’n, In c ., 45 2 U .S. 26 4, 3 00, 101 S. Ct.

32 235 2 (1 981 ) (“depriv atio n of pro pertyto protec t th e public h ealth and safetyis ‘oneof the old es t exam ple s’ of perm iss ible s umm ary acti on”) (quot ing Ewing v. Myt inger &C

asselbe rry, In c. , 3 3 9U .S

. 5 9 4 , 5 9 9 , 7 0S

. C t. 8 7 0( 1 9 5 0)) ; Norman Brid ge Drug C o. v. Ban ner , 52 9 F .2d 822 , 82 8 (5 th Cir. 1 976) (seiz ure witho ut notice can be invoked “o nlyto avoid immine nt danger toth e pub lic h ealtha n d safe ty”)

. 35 c r im in a l ju s tic e c o n te x t

— p u b lic s a fe ty , co n tr a b a n d , b o r d e r s e c u r ity , p u b lic 29 30 31 h eal t h — bu t non e requi res t h at t h e State pu t t h e property t o a parti cul ar use

32 or pay t h e ow n er ! In essence, t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t provi des n o com pen sator y protec t i on t o the property ow n er l i ke S everan ce, f or once t h e State h as sat i sf i ed th e rea son a b l en ess req u i rem en t, i ts ob l i ga ti on i s f u l fi l l ed

. Iti s th e F i ft h A m en d m en t, the n , con stru ed h ere thro u gh the l en s of t h e F ou rtee n th A m en dm ent , t hat ens ure s t hat t he St at e m ustr es pec t pr i vat e pr ope r t y by
c urt ai l i n g th e pur pos e f orw hi c h t he St at e m ay t ake (be i t t i t l e, physi c al po s s e s s i o n, o r s o m e c r uc i als t i c k f r o m t he b undl e of

pr o pe r t y r i ght s ) , a nd
r e qui r i ng t hatw he n t he St at e do e s t ak e , i t pa y f o r t h e p ri vi l ege . Fo r t he
m aj ori t y t o say t h at t h e F o u rth A m en d m en t a ff ord s p rotection w h en the S tate t ak e s a s t i c k f

r o m t he pr o pe r t y- r i ght s b undl e i s tantam o unt t o pe r m i t t i ng t heN o. 07- 20409

Th e ma jo ritypro tests th at this court, a s wellas othe rs hav e h eld, that cl aims may 33 im plic atemultip lec on stitu ti on al prot ec ti on s. See Jo hn Co rp. v. Cit y of Hous to n , 21 4 F .3d 5 73, 582(5th Cir. 2 000) (con sidering the interplayof the Fifth Amen dment and substantive du e process). Ido not disagree. Icontend only that th e wron g Severance a sserts h as b eeninflict ed on her has no remedyinth e Fourth Amen dment.

F irstEn g lishEva n

gel ical L u t h eranC

h u rc hof Gle n dale v. Los An gelesC ou n t y, C al

. , 34 482U.S. 304 , 314 , 107 S. Ct. 237 8 (198 7). (“As its lan gu age indic ates, and as th e C ourth as frequ ently note d, [th e T akin gs Cl ause] doe s no t pro hib it the takin g of private property , but ins teadplace s ac on diti ono nth e exerci seo f th at po we r. ”)

. As ar es u lt , th e T aki n g s C lau se subsu mes th e Fourth Amen dment protec tion s Severance seeks: We cannot know if a takin g isr ea so n ab leu ntil weknowwh eth erp ub lic u sea n d j u stc om pe n sati onaresati sf ie d. 36 S t ate t o t ak e w i t h ou t p u bl i c p u rpose or w i t h ou t provi di n g j u stcom pen sati on , or b o th

. S e v e r a n c e ’ s a r g u m e n t t h u s le a d s h e r t o a re s u lt t h a t is d ia m e tr ic a lly oppos ed t o t he o ne s he s ee ks: L ess p rot ec t i on o f pr ope r t y r i ght s r at her t han
m o r e . I n a ca s e l i ke t hi s , i n w hi c h Se ve r anc e al l e ge s not hi ng m o r e t han t hatt he
r e as o n o r pur po s e o f

t he t ak i ng w as e r r o ne o us , t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt do e s no

“ w or k” f orher

. As I s hal ldem ons t r at e i n det ai l bel ow , t he St at e’ s ac t i on w as

33
u n q u esti onabl y r eas onabl e, l eavi ng S ev era n ce u n com p en sa ted u n d er th e F ou rth A m e n d m e n t fo r th e ch im e r ic lo s s s h e n o w c la im s . In m y ju d g m e n t, th is d e ftly illu s tr a te s w h y th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t s im p ly d o e s n o t a p p ly to a ta k in g s cla im
m asqu eradi ng as a s e i z ur e . I t o f fe r s no q uar t e r , a nd c l e ar l y e xp l ai ns w hy t he F ram ers ad ded t h e F i f t h A m en dm en t’ s Ta kings C l au se, t o def i ne — tha t i s, to
c o nf i ne — w hat i s per m i ss i bl e w hen t he St at e t akes pr i vat e pr ope r t y. 34 Y et, i n co unten a n ci n g S ev era n ce’ s F ou rth A m en d m en t cl a i m , the m aj ority i m p erm i ss i bl y o pens t he doo r t o j udi c i alc ogni zanc e o f r un- of

- t he- m i l lFi f

th Am e ndm e nt t ak i ngs c l ai m s gus s i e d up as s e i z ur e c l ai m s . Fur t he r , i n a c as e l i ke t hi s t hat w i l l now be hear d se quent i al l y t o her Fi f t h A m endm ent c l ai m ( t o s ayN o. 07- 20409

37 no t hi ng o f

unne c e s s ar i l y dr ag gi ng t he T e xa s Supr e m e Cour t i nt o t he f r ay ) , t he
m ajo r ity o p in io n s q u a n d e r s ju d ic ia l r e s o u r c e s . T h e p a n e l m ajo r ity p e r m its th is t aki ngs c l ai m ant t o do n t he t r appi ngs of a s ei zur e c l ai m ant f ora s ec ond bi t e a t t h e const i t u t i on alapp l e. I f o r e s e e ad di t i o nal pr o bl e m s , i nc l udi ng t hat t hi s pe r m i t s Se ve r anc e a nd fu tu re si m i l a r cl a i m a n ts to h ea d off w h a t m i gh t oth erw i se be de em ed a v a lid t ak i ng byb r i ngi ng a s e i z ur e c l ai m b e f o r e t he t ak i ngs c l ai m r i pe ns . I nde e d, t he S ta te n e e d n o t a c t p u r s u a n t to a n e a s e m e n t t o e ffe c t a ta k in g . T h e ta k in gw o u ld b e v a lid s o lo n ga s th e in te n d e d u s e w a s p u b lic a n d th e la n d o w n e r ju s tly
c o m pe ns at e d. The m aj o r i t y’ s ho l di ng t ur ns t he Fi f t h Am e ndm e nt o n i t s he ad , e nab l i ng w hatm i ghtb e a v al i d t ak i ng t o b e a n i m pe r m i s s i bl e s e i z ur e ( t he t aki ngs c l ai m ant has not ye t s ought c om pensa t i on s o no ne has be en pai d) , an im p o s s ib le o u tc o m e . C . R ea so n a b l en ess I n i t s r ush t o con cl ude t hat Seve r ance ’ s Fourt h A m endm ent c l ai m m ay p r o c e e d , t h e p a n e l m ajo r ity ig n o r e s th e o b v io u s , vi z. , t h at her c l ai m as pl ead ed i s e nt i r e l y w i t ho ut m e r i t — a pr ude nt i alb as i s o f dec i s i o n t hatw o ul d ena bl e us t o avoi d t he c ons t i t ut i onalques t i on al t oge t her

. Al t hough Sever ance c l ai m s t hat
s he has suf

fe r e d bo t h a t ak i ng and a se i z ur e , a l ls he ha s r e al l y do ne i s t o c l o ne h er t ak i n gs cl ai m i n t o a sei zure cl ai m . H er sol e b asi s f or all egi n g a vi ol ati on of t he Fourt h A m endm ent ’ s r eas onabl enes s r equi r em ent i s t ha t , des pi t e a l ll aw and e vi de nc e t o t he c o nt r ar y, t he publ i c pr e vi o us l y had no r i ghtof ac c e s s t o t he porti on of

her property af

fect ed by R i t a. B u t t h i s l egal concl u si on is not t al i sm an i c, m erel y rel evan t
. F ou rt h A m en dm en t cl ai m s are an al yzed u n der aN o. 07- 20409

Graham v. Con nor , 4 9 0U .S

. 3 8 6 , 3 8 8 , 1 0 9S

. C t. 1 8 6 5( 1 9 8 9). 35 See , e. g. , Coll insv. Ai nsw orth , 382 F.3d529, 538 (5t h Cir. 2004) (quot ing B ro wnv . 36 Texas , 4 4 3U .S

. 4 7 , 5 0 -5 1 , 9 9S

. C t. 2 6 3 7( 1 9 7 9))

.

In deed, the Court in Soldal v . C oo kC ou n t y, I ll

. , ma dec le ar thata claim like 37 Severance’s is u nlikelyto succee d. 506U.S. 56, 71, 113S. Ct. 538(19 92). I n seekin g to allay fe arsth at it s hol di n g wo u ld op en th e fl oo dgate to frivol ou s civilse iz u rec laim s — j u sta s w e now face — the Court pointed out that “rea sonable ness is still the ulti mate standa r dunder the Fourth Amen dment,

. . . the reaso nab len ess dete rminationwillrefl ect a c areful b alanci ng of governme ntal and priv ate inte rests. Assumi ng , for ex ample, that th e o fficers were actin g pursuant to acourt o rder[,]

. . . a sh owing of unr easo nabl en es s onth ese facts would b e a lab orio us ta sk inde ed.” Id

. (i nte rn al citati on s o mitt ed).

Herring v. United States , __ _ U.S . __ _, 1 29 S. C t. 6 95, 699(20 09) (“Whe n a probable

38 cau se det ermin atio n was ba sed onrea son ab l eb utmistaken assumptio ns, th e pe rson subj ected toa se archor se iz u reha s no t n ec es sarilybe enth e vic ti m of ac on stitu ti on al vio lati on .”); see 38 st an da rd of

obj ect i ve reasona bl en ess vi ew ed throug h t h e l en s of t h e t ot al i t y of 35 th e cir c u m s ta n c e s , in c lu d in g th e in te r e s ts a t s ta k e . H e r e , th a t c a lc u lu s w o u ld 36
e nt ai lb al anc i ng t he i nt e r e s t o f t he publ i c i n co nt i nue d ac c e s s t o be ac he s t hatt he p e o p le h a v e e njo y e d fo r d e c a d e s if n o t c e n t u r ie s , a g a in s t a p r iv a t e la n d o w n e r ’s in te r e s t in e x c lu d in gm e m b e r s o f th e p u b lic — in th e fa c e o f a 5 0 -y e a r -o ld , w e llno t i c e d s t at ut e , t he r i s k o f w hi c h Se ve r anc e a c kno w l e dged, a cc e pt e d, a nd presum ably em pl oyed i n neg ot i ati n g h er purch ase pri ce. 37 S e v e r a n c e ’ s s e iz u r e c la im s im p ly c a n n o t su r v iv e th is a n a ly s is o n h e r s o le
as se r t ed al l egat i on t hat t he e as em ent had not at t ac hed. She doe s not ar gue t hat t he St at e a c t ed i n bad fai t h b eca u se s he c annot : Th e Texas c our t s have
r e p e a t e d ly u p h e ld th e s t a t u t e a n d r e c o g n iz e d it s a p p li c a b il it y to S e v e r a n c e ’s
s w a t h o f G a lv e s t o n ’s d r y b e a c h

. A t b e s t , s h e c o u ld a s s e r t th a t th e S t a t e ’s
assum pti on t h at t h e ea sem en t a pp l i ed w as m i st ak en ; yet , as t h e Su prem e C ou rt has rec en t l y re m i nde d us , i n t he c o nt e xto f t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt , m i s t ak e al o ne i s i ns uf

f i c i e nt t o de m o ns t r at e a c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n. 38N o. 07- 20409

also I llinois v. Ro drig uez , 497 U. S. 177 , 185, 110S

. Ct. 279 3 ( 1990) ( “[ S] uff icie nt pr obabil ity, n otc ertainty , isth e to u ch st on e of r ea so n ab le n es s u n de r th e F ourthAme n dm ent”). Presleyv . Cit

y of C h ar lo t t es vi lle , 4 6 4F .3 d 4 8 0( 4 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 39 Id . at48 2. 40 Id

. at 4 8 3
. 41 39 The m aj o r i t y m ak e s m uc h o f t he Fo ur t h Ci r c ui t ’ s de c i s i o n i n P re sley v. C ity of C h arl ot t esvi lle , t h e l on e ci rcui t case coun t en an ci n g si m u l t an eou s c l ai m s of t aki ng and se i zur e. B ut ev en ass um i ng argu end o th a t P res l ey w a s co r r e c tly 39 d eci ded, i t i s fac t ual l y di st i ngui shabl e. M s. Pres l ey al l ege d t hat th e C i ty
r epea ted l y e nco urage d publ i c t r es pass ont o he r l and by pr om ul gat i ng an e rr o n e o u s p r in t e d t ra il -m a p (th e tra ild id n o t a ctu a ll y cr o ss P re sle y ’ s la n d ). W he n Pr e s l e y c o m pl ai ne d, t he Ci t y r e pe at e dl y r e f us e d t o f

i x t he e r r o r a nd
am el i orat e t h e i l l egal t respassi n g. I n st ead , t h e C i t y pa ssed an ordi n an ce 40
au t h ori zi n g i t t o pr o s e c ut e Pr e s l e y f or defen di n g h er propert y. Presl ey assert ed 41
a c tio n s o f

C i ty m is c o n d u c t, vi z. , un reasona bl en ess, t h at oc curred i n i sol ati on from — an d i n ad d i ti on to — the fa ct of th e tak i n g; Se ve ra n ce a l l eg es n o d i scre te fac t s t hatw o ul d r e n der T exas ’ s a c t i o n unr e as o nab l e a nd d i s t i nc t f r o m t he
c la im e d ta k in g . D . Cons e nt Fi nal l y, e ve n i f Se ve r anc e w e r e t o m ana ge t he unl i ke l y feat of d e m o n s tr a tin gth a t t h e S ta te ’ s a lle g e d “s e i z u r e ” w a s u n r e a s o n a b le , sh e s till coul d n ever overc om e t h e fact t h at s h e f orf ei t ed an y such ri gh t by consen t w h en s he pur c has e d t he pr o pe r t i e s w i t h f ul la nd f

o r m alkno w l e dg e o f t he r o l l i ng easem en t an d i t s very r eal potenti al f or r ol l i n g. W i t h rare excepti on , sei zuresN o. 07- 20409

Uni ted States v. He rna ndez -Zuñiga , 215 F.3d483, 487 (5t h Cir. 2000) (cit ing United 42 States v. Wo odru m , 20 2 F. 3 d 1 , 1 1 ( 1 stC ir

. 2 0 0 0)) ; see a lso Maso n v. Pulliam , 55 7 F .2d 4 26, 428(5th Cir. 197 7) (relying onSchnec klo th v. Bustam onte , 4 1 2 U .S

. 2 1 8 , 9 3S

. C t. 2 0 4 1 ( 1 9 7 3 ))

. United States v. Dow , 357 U.S. 17, 27, 78 S. C t. 1 039(19 58) (discussin g contractu al 43 a n d oth err em edie s av ail ab leto ap riv atep artywh o kn owin glyp u rch a se s e n cu mb er edl a n d)

.

See , e. g. , United States v. Kelley , 9 8 1 F .2 d 1 4 6 4 , 1 4 7 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). 44 40 fo llo w in gv a lid co n s e n t a r e co n s tit u tio n a l. By a c kno w l e d g i n ga n d a c c e p t i n gt he 42
en cum bran ce on t h e properti es at t h e t i m e of her pu rchase, Sev eran ce c on sented to the i r eff

ect ad i nf

i ni t um , w ai ved orf

or fei t ed any pos sibl e ri ght to cont es t t hat
en cum b ra n ce o r t o seek pay m en t f or i t , an d even accept ed a f orm of
c o m p e n s a tio n fo r th is d im in u tio n in th e v a lu e o f th e p r o p e r ty b y a n in tr in s ic do w nw ar d a dj us t m e nt i n t he pur c has e pr i c e . H e r a s s e n t v al i da t e d t he 43
en cum bran ce c um “s e iz u r e ” th e s a m e w a y th a t c o n s e n t to th e in s p e c t io n o f o n e ’s
v e h ic le ty p ic a ll y v a li d a t e s a s e a r c h a n d a n y e n s u in gs e iz u r e o f t h e v e h ic le ’s contents t h at m i gh t otherw i se h ave been d eem ed u n reasona bl e. A s s u ch, her 44
c o ns e nt c o nst i t ut e d a w ai ve r o f t he r i ghtt o c o m pl ai n when t he v e r y e as e m e nt t o w h i ch she h ad expressl y acceded i n her pu rchase ph y sic al l y rol l ed f u rt h er o n to h e r a lr e a d y le g a lly b u r d e n e d p r o p e r ty
. Th e m aj or i t y i gnor es t he arg u m ent s t hat c ounse lagai nsti t s hol di ng, i n st ead expa n di n g ( erroneou sl y) our i n t erpret ati on of a con st i t u t i on al provi si on t hat nee d notand s houl d notev en be di r ec t l y addr es sed. I am c onvi nce d t hat tod a y’ s h oldin g n e e d le ssly ob scu res th e li n e b etw ee n the F ou rth an d the F i ft h Am e ndm e nt s a s c ar e f ul l y c o ns t r uc t e d by t he Fr am e r s a nd s pur i o us l y o pe ns t he Four t h Am e ndm e nt a s a n a ve nue f o r pr o pe r t y- r i ght s a ct i vi s t s t o a t t ac k t he
e x e r c is e o f c o n s tit u tio n a lly p e r m is s ib le p o w e r s o f e m in e n t d o m a in — a cla s s ic
e xa m pl e o f

us i ng a s hi e l d a s a s w o r d.N o. 07- 20409

Pat te rsonv. Mo bil Oil C orp. , 3 3 5F .3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 45 Jeffers on v. Lead In ds. Ass’n, In c. , 1 0 6F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 7). 46 Id . (“Al one , th e absence o f a defin it ive answer from th e state supreme court ona 47 particul ar que stionis not suffici ent to warrant ce rtificati on.”)

C om pass Bank v. Ki n

g , Gri ff in & Adam so nP.C. , 3 88 F .3d 5 04, 505n .1 (5 th Cir. 48 2 0 0 4). Id . at50 5.

49 41 V . C E RT I F I CA T I ON I t i s not eno ugh t hat t he m aj or i t y her e c ount en ance s an ar gum ent t hat
m el ds t h e F ou rt h an d F i f t h am en dm en t s; i t t h en up en ds ou r pol i cy on certif i ca ti on i n f

u rth era n c e o f th i s cou rse. A l th ou gh the de ci sion w h eth er to
c e r t i f y q u e s t i o n s t o a s t a t e s u p r e me c o u r t l i e s wi t h i n o u r s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n , we 45
m u s t r e m a in ch a r y to e x e r c is e th a t d is c r e tio n a b s e n t a “c o m p e llin gre a s o n .” 46 Th e m aj or i t y’ s expl anat i on — t hat c er t i f i c a ti on i s r equi r ed be c ause t he Texas Su pre m e Courthas r em ai ned s i l ent on t hi s i ss ue
— i s i nsuf f i c i ent
. The Texas

47 i n t erm edi ate c ou rt s are n earl y u n an i m ou s. A n d t h i s qu est i on i s not so c om pl ex 48
ordi f f i c ul t a m at t er of st at e l aw t hat w e m ust r ef r ai n f r om ent er i ng t he f

r ay — al t h ou gh even i f

i t w ere, “w e d o n ot u se cert i f i cat i on a s a p an acea f or r esol u t i on o f c o m pl e x o r di f

f i c ul t s t at e l aw q ue s t i o ns w hi c h ha ve no t b e e n a ns w e r e d b y t he hi ghe s t c o ur t o f

t he s t at e . ” W e s ho ul d de c i de t he i s s ue s b e f o r e us b y af

f i r m i ng 49 t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s al s o n t he pr ude nt i al gr o und o f l ac k o f s t and i ng and fai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m w i t hout ve nt uri ng unn ec es sa r i l y i nt o t he C ons t i t ut i onal b og . I resp ectfull y d i sse n t.