Devillier v. Texas
The Facts
A Texas highway project diverted floodwaters, repeatedly flooding Robert Devillier's property. He sued Texas under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Texas argued there was no cause of action directly under the Constitution to enforce a takings claim, only such rights as state law expressly conferred.
The Application
Devillier's takings claim arising from state-diverted floodwaters presented the threshold question whether the Fifth Amendment itself authorized a direct action against the state, or whether he needed a statutory right of action to proceed. The Court answered that while the Constitution guarantees just compensation when government takes property, the remedial mechanism may be supplied by state law, through any available avenue that permits property owners to vindicate that constitutional right. For Devillier, this meant the case proceeded, but success depended on whether Texas law actually supplied such a remedy, a factual-legal determination left to the lower court to resolve on remand.
The Conclusion
**Devillier v. Texas avoided deciding whether the Takings Clause creates a self-executing cause of action, instead holding that state law may supply the procedural vehicle for bringing a takings claim and remanding to address that question.** The ruling preserved the constitutional right to just compensation while leaving unresolved the foundational question of the Clause's self-executing status.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Texas landowners whose property was flooded by state-authorized infrastructure sought just compensation under the Takings Clause but faced the question of whether they could bring such a claim directly under the Constitution without an express statutory cause of action. The Supreme Court held 9-0 that state law must provide some avenue for landowners to seek just compensation, but remanded to determine whether Texas law supplied that avenue.
Facts
A Texas highway project diverted floodwaters, repeatedly flooding Robert Devillier's property. He sued Texas under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Texas argued there was no cause of action directly under the Constitution to enforce a takings claim, only such rights as state law expressly conferred.
Issue
Whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides a self-executing right of action for property owners to seek just compensation from a state, or whether a separate statutory cause of action is required.
Rule
The Takings Clause requires just compensation for government takings of private property. While the Constitution requires the remedy, whether the right of action to enforce that obligation derives from the Constitution directly or must be supplied by statute is a separate question. States must provide some cause of action for just compensation; whether Texas law does so was left to the lower court.
Analysis
Devillier's takings claim arising from state-diverted floodwaters presented the threshold question whether the Fifth Amendment itself authorized a direct action against the state, or whether he needed a statutory right of action to proceed. The Court answered that while the Constitution guarantees just compensation when government takes property, the remedial mechanism may be supplied by state law. Through any available avenue that permits property owners to vindicate that constitutional right. For Devillier, this meant the case proceeded, but success depended on whether Texas law actually supplied such a remedy, a factual-legal determination left to the lower court to resolve on remand.
Conclusion
**Devillier v. Texas avoided deciding whether the Takings Clause creates a self-executing cause of action, instead holding that state law may supply the procedural vehicle for bringing a takings claim and remanding to address that question.** The ruling preserved the constitutional right to just compensation while leaving unresolved the foundational question of the Clause's self-executing status.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support