Yes. The government has to pay the family. An old saying was that if you own land, you own the sky all the way to the stars. That's not true anymore because we need airplanes to fly. But, you still own the air right above your property that you need to actually use your land. By flying its planes so low and so often, the government invaded this private airspace and made the farm useless. This is just as bad as if the government had built a bridge over their land, so it counts as 'taking' their property.

No. The government should not have to pay because it didn't 'take' anything. The planes never touched the ground. The real problem was the noise and bright lights, which is a nuisance, not a taking. It's like living next to a noisy highway—you don't get paid just because the cars are loud. Congress should be in charge of making rules for air travel, and the Court shouldn't interfere and create new rules that could hurt the future of flying.

Yes, the government kind of did take the Causbys' property. The planes flew so low and so often right over their land that the Causbys couldn't fully use and enjoy their farm. It's like the government came in and used part of their property without asking. People own the space above their land that they can use, so the government can't just fly planes there whenever they want if it causes problems. The sky high up is free for everyone, but the space right above your land is yours.

The Court's decision might make it harder for the government to make new rules about air travel in the future. The Constitution doesn't stop them from doing that. The noise and bright lights from the planes might be annoying, but that's different from the government actually taking the Causbys' property. The idea of 'taking' property has never included things like noise before. The government already made rules about how air travel should work, and courts shouldn't mess that up by bringing in old ideas about owning land. New problems that come up because of new inventions should be solved by the government making new rules, not courts saying the Constitution prevents it.

No, flying planes so low over someone's property isn't the same as the government taking their land. The Court's decision might make it harder for the government to make new rules about air travel in the future. The Constitution doesn't stop them from doing that. The noise and bright lights from the planes might be annoying, but that's different from the government actually taking the Causbys' property. The idea of 'taking' property has never included things like noise before. The government already made rules about how air travel should work, and courts shouldn't mess that up by bringing in old ideas about owning land. New problems that come up because of new inventions should be solved by the government making new rules, not courts saying the Constitution prevents it.

A "taking" may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government,

Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.

In 1946, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the doctrine, which the majority opinion today adopts, had "no place in the modern world."

—the Supreme Court reasoned that "[t] he landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense—by the erection of buildings and the like—is not material."

While Penn Central may continue to use the Terminal as it is presently designed, appellees otherwise "exercise complete dominion and control over the surface of the land,"

—"[i] f there is a taking, the claim is founded upon the Constitution and within the jurisdiction of the Court of [Federal] Claims to hear and determine."

—disapproving the maxim that ownership of the land extends indefinitely upward, and noting that such precept would imply that "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits

—think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface. "***" The airplane is a part of the modern environment of life, and the inconveniences which it causes are normally not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the …

In United States v. Causby, low and frequent overflights by military aircraft destroyed a chicken farming business because the noise from the overflights caused the chickens to reduce egg production and to die from fright.

Though not addressed in the majority en banc opinion, to the extent the majority reinstates Part IV, I continue to concur in the decision to reverse the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Roth's claims, but only to the extent Roth asserts a constitutional takings claim against the Meritor receivership surplus.

Yes. The frequent and regular flight of government aircraft at low altitudes directly over a landowner's property constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment when it is a direct and immediate interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. While the ancient common law doctrine that land ownership extends to the periphery of the universe is obsolete, a landowner nonetheless owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land. The government’s flights were not in the public 'navigable airspace,' which is above the minimum safe altitudes, but were instead in the private, superadjacent airspace immediately above the respondents' property. These continuous invasions were a direct appropriation of the use of the land, equivalent to a physical entry, and destroyed its utility as a chicken farm. This constitutes the imposition of a servitude on the land, which is a compensable taking.

No. The government's actions do not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment but at most sound in tort, for which the government has not consented to be sued in the Court of Claims. The concept of a constitutional 'taking' has never been extended to cover damages resulting from noise and glare, which are merely consequential damages analogous to those caused by a nearby highway or railroad. The Constitution does not guarantee that landowners own the airspace above their property; Congress has declared exclusive sovereignty over the airspace and established a public right of navigation. By creating a rigid constitutional rule, the Court is usurping Congress's power to regulate air commerce and will hamper the future development of aviation. The proper solution to such problems lies with legislative adjustments, not judicial interference.

Yes, there was a taking of property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The flights over the property were so low and frequent that they directly and immediately interfered with the enjoyment and use of the land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land. The flights in question were not within the navigable airspace which Congress placed within the public domain, and thus, a servitude has been imposed upon the land. The maxim that ownership of the land extends indefinitely upward is disapproved, as it would imply that every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. However, in this case, the interference can be characterized as a physical invasion by government, which is a taking.

The Court's decision imposes an absolute constitutional barrier to potential future legislation and regulation that may become necessary as air transportation grows. The Constitution does not contain such barriers. The allegation of noise and glare resulting in damages constitutes at best an action in tort, not a taking. The concept of a taking of property has never before been given such a sweeping meaning. Congress has already acted under its power to control navigable airspace, preempting the field. Courts should not hamper Congress in its efforts to regulate air navigation by introducing old concepts of private ownership of land. The solution to the problems caused by new technology should be left to Congress, not the courts through constitutional interpretation.

Yes, we hold there was a taking of property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The flights over the property were so low and frequent that they directly and immediately interfered with the enjoyment and use of the land. We conclude that a landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as can be occupied or used in connection with the land. The flights in question were not within the navigable airspace which Congress placed within the public domain, and thus, we have imposed a servitude upon the land. We disapprove the maxim that ownership of the land extends indefinitely upward, as it would imply that every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. However, in this case, the interference can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government, which is a taking.

I dissent. No, the government does not take property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment by flying planes frequently and regularly over private land at low altitudes. The Court's decision imposes an absolute constitutional barrier to potential future legislation and regulation that may become necessary as air transportation grows. The Constitution does not contain such barriers. The allegation of noise and glare resulting in damages constitutes at best an action in tort, not a taking. The concept of a taking of property has never before been given such a sweeping meaning. Congress has already acted under its power to control navigable airspace, preempting the field. Courts should not hamper Congress in its efforts to regulate air navigation by introducing old concepts of private ownership of land. The solution to the problems caused by new technology should be left to Congress, not the courts through constitutional interpretation.

United States v. Causby

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot