Term: 2012
Docket: 11-597
Arkansas Game And Fish Commission, Petitioner v. United States
- Pro
11-597 ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 637 F3d 1366 JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 4/2/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioner Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, a constitutional entity of the State of Arkansas, sought just compensation from the United States under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment for physically taking its bottomland hardwood timber through six consecutive years of protested flooding during the sensitive growing season. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $5.7 million, finding that the Army Corps of Engineers' actions foreseeably destroyed and degraded more than 18 million board feet of timber, left habitat unable to regenerate, and preempted Petitioner's use and enjoyment. The Federal Circuit, with its unique jurisdiction over takings claims, reversed the trial judgment on a single point of law. Contrary to this Court's precedent, a sharply divided 2-1 panel ruled that the United States did not inflict a taking because its actions were not permanent and the flooding eventually stopped. The Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in a fractured 7-4 vote. The question presented is: Whether government actions that impose recurring flood invasions must continue permanently to take property within the meaning of the Takings Clause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2009-5121, 2010-5029
In the 2012 case of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC), stating that government-induced flooding can constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires just compensation for private property taken for public use. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers had released water from a dam over six consecutive years during growing seasons causing significant damage to AGFC’s management area downstream. The court rejected arguments by the federal government that temporary flooding could not be considered a taking because it was not permanent or inevitably recurring. Instead, they held that whether such flooding constituted as 'taking' would depend on factors like duration, intent and foreseeability among others.
In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that temporary flooding should not be considered a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. She contended that previous case law had established a distinction between permanent occupations or invasions of property and temporary physical invasions, with only the former constituting takings. Furthermore, she asserted that recognizing temporary flooding as a taking would open up flood control efforts to extensive litigation and potentially hinder public projects aimed at managing water flow for various purposes such as irrigation, navigation, or preventing floods in certain areas. Thus, according to her perspective on this case ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond just this specific instance.
