Opinion ID: 2105836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Invasion of TCLC's Airspace

Text: TCLC argues that its taking claim is based on the right to exclude overflights by civilian cargo and passenger jetliners. TCLC argues that, [a]lthough the right to exclude military avigation had been sold, the right to demand additional compensation should Bergstrom become a civilian airport remained a portion of the bundle of rights retained by TCLC. Thus, it claims, evidence of civilian overflights alone is enough to show that an unconstitutional taking of property occurred. We disagree. A landowner has no right to exclude overflights above its property, because airspace is part of the public domain. Causby, 328 U.S. at 266, 66 S.Ct. 1062. Rather, a property owner is entitled to compensation if its property is taken by overflights that immediately and directly interfere with the property's use and enjoyment. Id. This inquiry requires a more extensive factual showing than the mere existence of overflights. As one federal court has noted, an invasion of airspace above surface land does not per se constitute a taking. Brown v. United States, 73 F.3d 1100, 1104 (Fed.Cir.1996); see also Ronald C. Bodine v. U.S., 210 Ct.Cl. 687, 688, 1976 WL 23873 (1976) ([T]here are no cases concerning the wrongful use of airspace only.). That civilian aircraft overflew TCLC's property, without more, does not establish that an unconstitutional taking occurred.