DeVillier v. Texas

DeVillier v. Texas arose after Hurricane Harvey in August 2017, when the Texas Department of Transportation erected concrete barriers along Interstate 10 near Winnie, Texas. Richard DeVillier and dozens of other landowners in Chambers County alleged that the barriers diverted floodwaters from the highway onto their private properties, destroying homes, crops, and livestock. They sued Texas in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Fifth Amendment taking without just compensation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the suit, holding that property owners must rely on Texas' state inverse condemnation procedures rather than a federal takings claim. On April 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated that decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that because Texas law already provides an inverse condemnation remedy, the Fifth Circuit erred in blocking the landowners from pursuing their claims. The Court expressly declined to decide whether the Takings Clause itself creates a direct federal cause of action under §1983, leaving that unresolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded. The opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas held that Texas law provides a cause of action for inverse condemnation, so the lower court erred in dismissing the landowners' claims. The Court did not resolve whether the Takings Clause is self-executing or directly actionable under § 1983.

Whether property owners may bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when state law provides an inverse condemnation remedy, and whether the Takings Clause itself supplies a cause of action for damages against a state.

The ruling reinforces that property owners can seek compensation through state inverse condemnation laws after government-induced flooding, while avoiding a definitive answer on whether the Takings Clause directly authorizes federal damages claims. It affects post-disaster infrastructure liability and clarifies the procedural interplay between federal constitutional rights and state remedies.