Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States

Last updated
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 3, 2012
Decided December 4, 2012
Full case nameArkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
Docket no. 11-597
Citations568 U.S. 23 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 511; 184 L. Ed. 2d 417; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9409; 75 ERC 1417; 81 U.S.L.W. 4013
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorJudgment for plaintiff, 87 Fed. Cl. 594 (2009); reversed, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 566 U.S. 920(2012).
Holding
Government-induced recurrent floodings, even if temporary in duration, are not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property. [1]

Contents

The case was brought by an Arkansas state agency, alleging that federal flood control practices along the Black River had damaged valuable timber on state-owned lands. The commission's lawsuit was supported by advocates for property rights, as well as by fish, forestry and wildlife groups. [2] In opposition, the federal government cited the concern that an adverse ruling could expose it to massive liability for its nationwide flood control efforts.

The Court's decision revitalized the Arkansas agency's lawsuit, which had been reversed on appeal after a $5.7 million judgment had been entered in its favor against the U.S. government. The Supreme Court restricted its holding to the issue of whether temporary flooding was categorically excluded from qualifying as a taking, leaving to the lower appellate court to review the remaining legal issues and merits of the judgment on remand.

Background of the case

[T]he Corps requires a broad ambit of discretion in managing a river over time, and it has to be able to change to update circumstances without exposing the United States to massive liability.

-- Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General.
Oral Argument, Tr. 52:19-23

The case arose from the management of Clearwater Dam by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps followed a water control plan under which it released water from the dam at rates depending on the season. Between 1993 and 2000, however, the Corps deviated from this plan at the request of farmers, by releasing water during a period that extended into the timber-growing season of the Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area, which is owned and managed by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, an Arkansas state agency. [3]

The Commission sued the United States, arguing that the temporary flooding of its Management Area, and consequent damage of valuable timber, constituted a taking of property for which it was entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the commission and awarded it $5.7 million for the lost timber and the cost of reforesting. [4] The ruling was reversed on appeal by a divided panel of the Federal Circuit, on the basis that there could be no takings claim unless the flooding was "permanent or inevitably recurring." [5]

The Supreme Court's decision

The Court only had the issue before it of whether government-induced temporary flooding was categorically exempt from the scope of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. In a unanimous, eight-justice opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, [6] the Court ruled that there was no basis in its Takings Clause jurisprudence for such an exemption.

We have recognized ... that no magic formula enables a court to judge, in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a taking. In view of the nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests, the Court has recognized few invariable rules in this area.

-- 568 U.S. at ___ (slip op., at 6-7).

After reviewing 140 years of takings clause flood cases, the Court focused its attention on rejecting the United States' argument. The Solicitor General relied primarily on a 1924 case where the Court had stated that to establish liability, an overflow must be the direct result of "an actual, permanent invasion of the land." [7] While never going so far as to label the statement dicta, the 2012 Court reasoned that even if the 1924 Court's "passing statement" had established a general limitation, that limitation had been superseded by the temporary takings logic developed in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles , 482 U.S. 304. [8] The Court took care not to express an opinion on a theory first advanced at oral argument that the takings clause only applies to flooding upstream, not downstream; or to consider an amicus argument based on water rights. [9] The Court left to the Federal Circuit on remand to decide if either of those issues was preserved, as well as a host of Government challenges to the Court of Federal Claims' fact-findings. [10]

Reactions

"We're thrilled ... It sends a strong message that this kind of action is compensable under our Constitution, and cannot be treated different from other government intrusions on property. This reopens the door for our agency and state to recoup our losses."

-- James Goodhart, general counsel for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. [2]

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's position was supported by the National Association of Home Builders, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Forest Resource Council, among others. [11] The Pacific Legal Foundation also hailed the Court's decision as an important victory for property rights. [12]

Carrie Severino, writing for National Review , characterized the decision as "yet another unanimous defeat" for the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, which she wrote had "developed a noted pattern of adopting positions that fail to sway even one justice." Severino attributed this in part to the government's "extreme position", that landowners downstream of a federally managed dam knew the risks of flooding and so should never get compensation, which "went beyond what was logically required to make its point." [13] Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog was similarly critical of the government's approach at oral argument, which he derided as the equivalent of "trust us" being offered as a legal standard. Denniston noted that the government's "boldness was something of a jolt to the oral argument ... and left some Justices in wonderment." [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the tonnage clause of the United States Constitution.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that there are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner in the case was David Kappos, who was then serving as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person accused of a crime receives a directed acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second trial of that person for the same crime, even if the person was acquitted in error.

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as Alliance for Open Society I, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ; 576 U.S. 351 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent. The Court found that the map, created by a bipartisan commission on the basis of the 2010 census, was constitutional.

Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether the residual clause in the United States Advisory Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration is unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

References

  1. ↑ Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012).
  2. 1 2 Baynes, Terry; Stempel, Jonathan (December 4, 2012), "Supreme Court: government may be liable for flood damage", Reuters , retrieved December 4, 2012
  3. ↑ Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 568 U.S. at ___ (slip op., at 2-4).
  4. ↑ Summarized at 568 U.S. at ___ (slip op., at 4-6); original decision at Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 594 (2009).
  5. ↑ Summarized at 568 U.S. at ___ (slip op., at 6); original decision at Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n v. United States, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
  6. ↑ Justice Kagan did not participate, having worked on the case as Solicitor General prior to her appointment to the Court. See "Supreme Court says government not exempt from paying damages over flooding from federal dams". The Washington Post . Associated Press. December 4, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2012.[ dead link ]
  7. ↑ Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n, slip. op., at 10 (citing Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 150 (1924)).
  8. ↑ Id. at 10.
  9. ↑ Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n, slip op., at 13; Tr. of Oral Arg. 30-39; Brief for United States 26-27; http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/11-597-bsac-Professors-of-Property-and-Water-Right.pdf Archived 2014-03-12 at the Wayback Machine .
  10. ↑ Id. at 15.
  11. ↑ Stohr, Greg (December 4, 2012). "Landowners May Be Due Payment After Flooding, Court Says". Bloomberg . Retrieved December 10, 2012.
  12. ↑ Hodges, Brian T. (December 4, 2012). "Important property rights victory in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States". PLF Liberty Blog. Pacific Legal Foundation. Archived from the original on December 20, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2012.
  13. ↑ Severino, Carrie (December 4, 2012). "Supreme Court Hands DOJ Another Unanimous Defeat". National Review . Retrieved December 10, 2012..
  14. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (October 3, 2012). "Argument recap: "Trust us" as a legal standard". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved December 10, 2012..

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.