Brandon Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners
No. 22-12041 (11th Cir. July 31, 2025) (2025)
Rule of Law:
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is self-executing and provides a direct cause of action for property owners to seek just compensation from local governments, independent of statutory vehicles like 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Facts:
- On April 22, 2017, Fulton County Animal Services officers arrested Brandon Fulton for felony cruelty to animals.
- During the arrest, the officers seized seven horses belonging to Fulton.
- Approximately one year later, on April 5, 2018, the state of Georgia dismissed the criminal charges against Fulton.
- Despite the dismissal of charges, Fulton County did not return the horses to Fulton.
- The County also failed to provide Fulton with any monetary compensation for the value of the seized horses.
- Fulton sought to recover the value of his property, alleging the seizure constituted a taking without just compensation.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Commissioners.
- The Board of Commissioners moved to dismiss the complaint.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to substitute the County as the defendant and add a direct claim under the Fifth Amendment.
- The District Court denied the motion to amend, ruling that a direct constitutional claim would be futile because § 1983 is the exclusive remedy and the plaintiff failed to meet § 1983 requirements.
- The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
- Plaintiff appealed the denial of the motion to amend and the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provide a direct cause of action allowing a property owner to sue a local government for just compensation when statutory remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are unavailable due to a lack of official municipal policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Rosenbaum
Yes, the Takings Clause contains an intrinsic, direct cause of action that allows property owners to sue local governments for just compensation. The court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment is unique because it expressly guarantees a specific remedy—'just compensation'—and is self-executing. The court drew an analogy to the Suspension Clause (habeas corpus), noting these are the only two constitutional provisions providing explicit remedies. The majority held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an insufficient exclusive remedy because the Monell doctrine prevents liability absent an official policy or custom, whereas the Takings Clause mandates compensation whenever government agents take property within the scope of their duties, regardless of official policy. Therefore, denying a direct cause of action would render the constitutional right illusory in cases where § 1983 falls short. The court also determined that sovereign immunity does not bar this direct claim against a county and that the claim was timely under the borrowed state statute of limitations for personal property recovery.
Dissenting - Chief Judge William Pryor
No, the Constitution creates substantive rights but generally leaves it to Congress to create the causes of action (tickets to court) to enforce those rights. The dissent argued that the majority improperly engaged in judicial activism by creating an implied right of action, akin to the disfavored Bivens doctrine. Chief Judge Pryor contended that the text and history of the Constitution do not support a direct cause of action and that Congress provided the appropriate vehicle through § 1983. The dissent asserted that Fulton had adequate remedies available—including state tort law claims against individual officers, state inverse condemnation actions, and a timely § 1983 suit—but simply failed to pursue them correctly. By bypassing the Monell requirements through a direct constitutional claim, the majority undermines the limitations Congress placed on municipal liability.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant expansion of property rights litigation in the Eleventh Circuit by establishing that plaintiffs do not need to rely solely on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to sue local governments for takings. It effectively creates a bypass around the strict Monell standard, which requires plaintiffs to prove an official policy or custom caused their injury. Now, plaintiffs within this jurisdiction can sue local governments directly under the Constitution if government employees take property within the scope of their duties, even if no official policy authorized the taking. This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's 'self-executing' language in Knick but goes further by explicitly recognizing a direct cause of action where the Supreme Court had previously reserved judgment.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Brandon Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners (2025)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"