This comes under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the lawsuit came from a 2017 incident where a highway median barrier in Texas caused damage to private properties from stormwaters.

Central to the case was the interpretation of the Takings Clause and whether it can allow people to directly sue states for compensation without the need for congressional say-so.

However, as the Takings Clause is open to various interpretations, this is what ultimately led to the court case as people were confused as to what was and wasn’t allowed.

However, changes that were made surrounding the family’s land caused flooding. The flooding was so bad that it was considered a catastrophe, which caused him to take action.

When Hurricane Harvey hit in 2017, the changes to IH-10 caused DeVillier’s land to flood. This caused animals and trees to die, and the same problem occurred every time another hurricane or storm hit the area.

They were able to argue that federal courts did not have the jurisdiction to try the case and that the Takings Clause would require particular authorization from Congress.

This was due to them stating that the Takings Clause is “self-executing” as it lets property wonders directly sue states in federal court for property seizure compensation.

In their statement, they claimed that the Takings Clause as part of the 14th Amendment does not allow individuals the right to sue states unless they have congressional authorization.

This allows for the landowner’s case to proceed although the Court did not provide comment on whether the Takings Clause would apply “self-executing” against states.

During the court case, it was made clear that Texas wholeheartedly believes in this right; however, it had raised questions on the procedural vehicle for how a property owner would be able to exercise this right.

Now the case has been sent down to the lower courts again to be further considered as part of Texas state law.

During the oral argument, Texas claimed that its state law inverse condemnation clause of action enables a vehicle for taking claims that are based on the Texas Constitution and the Takings Clause.

This is because they can pursue their claims under the Takings Clause through the course of action that is available under Texas law.

If it was now a lake, this is where there were problems as the Takings Clause states that Texas is allowed to turn a land into a lake whenever it fancies, but it has to pay for it first. However, Texas also doesn’t have to obey the Fifth Amendment.

As it could be argued that the Department of Transportation had built the ‘dam’ on the IH-10, which then led to the flooding of surrounding land, it led to DeVillier demanding compensation from the Texas government.

If it can happen in state court, Texas can argue that the case should be transferred to federal court, only to then argue that the case should be dismissed as there is no federal cause of action.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not provide compensation for actions like confiscation or destruction of firearms although cases argue that this violates the Clause.

This is because of the Court’s decision not to provide specific wording on if the Takings Clause will allow individuals to sue states directly in federal court.

This could span bans on assault weapons, restrictions on magazine capacity, and requirements for firearm registration.

This could impact Second Amendment cases which are filed against federal courts without providing congressional authorization for a cause of action.

The act enabled residents to hold a gun no matter what, something that the federal government challenged. The Supreme Court voted in an 8-1 decision in favor of the act; however, it is unknown how this will play out going forward.

This includes a ruling in Oregon, where there was previously a statewide magazine ban. However, this was ruled unconstitutional and the ban got thrown out of court.

This includes a ruling where it sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA), after an alleged First Amendment breach by New York’s financial regulatory body. But like other rulings, there are still confusions as to what this might mean for the future.

There is now doubt over how legal proceedings will unfold if taking claims against states in federal court do not have a specific statutory cause of action from Congress.

The ruling highlights how the legal landscape continues to change and evolve over time, and stakeholders must stay alert to the principles outlined in the Constitution.