Court Opinion

ID: 9353022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 19:00:53.464061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:46.360886
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40750     Document: 00516603930         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                             REVISED 1/10/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                                                       November 23, 2022
                                  No. 21-40750                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk

   Richard Devillier; Wendy Devillier; Steven Devillier;
   Rhonda Devillier; Barbara Devillier; et al,

                                                           Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                      versus

   State of Texas,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                               No. 3:20-CV-223

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:
         The State of Texas appeals the district court’s decision that Plaintiffs’
   federal Taking Clause claims against the State may proceed in federal court.
   Because we hold that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the
   states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action
Case: 21-40750         Document: 00516603930               Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                          No. 21-40750

   for takings claims against a state, 1 we VACATE the district court’s decision
   and REMAND for further proceedings. Nothing in this opinion is intended
   to displace the Supreme Court of Texas’s role as the sole determinant of
   Texas state law. 2

           1
              See Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 742 (2020) (“[A] federal court’s authority
   to recognize a damages remedy must rest at bottom on a statute enacted by Congress.”);
   Azul–Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a
   takings plaintiff has “no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution”),
   cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1081 (1993).
           2
                The Supreme Court of Texas recognizes takings claims under the federal and
   state constitutions, with differing remedies and constraints turning on the character and
   nature of the taking. See City of Baytown v. Schrock, 645 S.W.3d 174, 178 (Tex. 2022)
   (“Under our [federal and state] constitutions, waiver occurs when the government refuses
   to acknowledge its intentional taking of private property for public use. A suit based on this
   waiver is known as an ‘inverse condemnation’ claim.”); see also Gutersloh v. Texas, No. 93-
   8729, 25 F.3d 1044, 994 WL 261047, *1 (5th Cir. 1994) (unpublished per curiam) (“[The
   State] . . . admits, the courts of the State of Texas are open to inverse condemnation damage
   claims against state agencies on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states
   through the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as on the basis of the Texas Constitution and
   laws.”); Allodial Ltd. P’ship v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., 176 S.W.3d 680, 683–84 (Tex. App.—
   Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (noting that Texas courts apply a two-year limitations period to
   takings claims for “damaged” property and a ten-year limitations period to takings claims
   for “taken” property).

                                                 2