A Texas Win In Takings Dispute 'Could Have A Chilling Effect'

Allen Matkins partner Rick Friess was recently quoted in Law360. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Devillier v. Texas, which involves allegations of the state unconstitutionally taking property value by erecting barriers along Interstate 10, causing flooding during storms. Experts anticipate a potential reversal of a lower court decision in favor of Texas, warning that such a decision could encourage other states to claim immunity for alleged takings. The case questions whether property owners can sue a state for a taking, invoking the Fifth Amendment, and may define property rights nationwide. The plaintiffs argue for a federal process to address Fifth Amendment claims, while some states, like California, have laws addressing property damage claims.

"In California, our constitution actually says taking or damaging property is unconstitutional," said Rick Friess, a partner at Allen Matkins, who expects the high court to overturn the Fifth Circuit decision in Devillier. "We [in California] have the advantage … that our constitution specifically addresses it. We don't get caught in that same catch-22 that they've found themselves in in Devillier."

Read more (subscription required).