In the 1945 case United States v. Causby et ux., Thomas Lee Causby and his wife Tinie sued the U.S. government for damages caused by low-flying military aircraft over their chicken farm, which was located near an airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. The noise from the planes frightened their chickens to death and made living on their property unbearable. They argued that this constituted a taking of property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Causby, establishing that landowners have air rights up to at least 83 feet above ground level (the lowest altitude at which aircraft flew over Causby's farm). However, it also held that these rights do not extend indefinitely into space; otherwise every transcontinental flight would be subject to countless trespass lawsuits. This landmark decision clarified aspects of aviation law and eminent domain: while homeowners own airspace above their properties necessary for use and enjoyment of those properties, they don't own all airspace extending upwards from them.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Causby et ux., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to award damages to a chicken farmer whose business was disrupted by low-flying military aircraft set a dangerous precedent. He contended that this ruling could potentially open up the government to countless claims from property owners who live near airports or under flight paths, which would be financially burdensome and impractical given the importance of air travel for national defense and commerce. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of airspace rights, asserting that while landowners should have control over immediate reaches above their property necessary for its use and enjoyment, they shouldn't have exclusive control over all airspace simply because it is technically within their property lines as defined by traditional legal principles grounded in land-based conceptions of ownership.