The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a case brought by an innocent Texas woman seeking compensation after a SWAT team destroyed her home while pursuing a fugitive.
“Vicki Baker, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), was seeking to make it clear that victims of such destruction are entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment,” the Institute announced in a statement.
“I was hoping the Supreme Court would take up my case, so what happened to me would never happen to anyone else, so it’s disappointing that they decided not to hear it,” said Baker. “If police can destroy my home and leave me with the bill, it can happen to anyone.”
“At some point, the Supreme Court will need to grapple with the fact that there is a circuit split and that the lower courts are divided on this issue,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. “The constitution makes it clear that the government must compensate people for such takings, and your ability to receive such compensation shouldn’t depend on where in the country you live.”
The Institute laid out its case, writing:
In July 2020, a fugitive was attempting to flee police with a hostage and decided to barricade himself inside a home with a “for sale” sign out front. That home happened to belong to Vicki, who was under contract to sell and was out of town at the time. When the McKinney SWAT team arrived on the scene, they stormed the home, launched tear-gas grenades, knocked down doors, and ran over the fences with an armored vehicle. The raid caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage, and the would-be buyer backed out of the deal.
Like many insurance plans, Vicki’s did not cover “acts of the government,” and when she reached out to the city about being compensated, they refused, claiming they were immune…
… Vicki teamed up with IJ to sue in March 2021. In April 2022, the district court ruled the city was “liable for a taking” under both the United States and Texas Constitutions, and in June 2022 a jury ruled she was owed nearly $60,000 in damages. But the city appealed the decision, and in October 2023 a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court. When Vicki asked the full appeals court to rehear the panel’s decision, they voted against doing so, 11-6…
…Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch wrote a statement saying that this case “raises a serious question: whether the Takings Clause permits the government to destroy private property without paying just compensation, as long as the government had no choice but to do so.” They go on to explain that lower courts should continue to grapple with this issue and that the Supreme Court may have to take the question up in the future.
“In their statement, the justices point out that had the city ‘razed Baker’s home to build a public park, Baker undoubtedly would be entitled to compensation. Here, the McKinney police destroyed Baker’s home for a different public use: to protect local residents and themselves from an armed and dangerous individual. Under the Fifth Circuit’s decision, Baker alone must bear the cost of that public benefit,’” the Institute notes.
“We’re obviously disappointed the court declined to hear Vicki’s case, but we will continue to fight for justice until every American’s property rights are secured,” said IJ President and General Counsel Scott Bullock. “Whether it’s the police department raiding a home to catch a fugitive or the highway department condemning a home for a road that will be used by the public, the government must pay when it takes private property for a public good.”
“Although the Supreme Court’s decision is the final word on Vicki’s claim under the United States Constitution, she still has a claim under the Texas Constitution, and IJ will continue to represent her in seeking compensation,” the Institute notes.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
In spite of the OBVIOUS injustice being perpetrated here, the SCOTUS is following its normal practice of requiring the lower courts to “Attempt'” to correctly apply a citizens Constitutional rights to a governmental act.
The difficulty here is that a citizen is being denied their just and necessary compensation in the interim.
I’m sorry but this just does not seem right and where are the statutes that say anyone, even goverment can come in a completely destroy your home with no restitution to the property owner? Was than not private property? The US Supreme Court needs to hear this one for sure.
END these actions