The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 25 declined to take up the appeal of a Texas woman whose home was damaged during a SWAT raid.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch concurred with dismissing the petition but expressed sympathy for the homeowner’s argument that governments shouldn’t be allowed “to destroy private property without paying just compensation.”
The case goes back to 2020, when Vicki Baker’s home was raided by police who were chasing Wesley Little, a fugitive who had kidnapped a 15-year-old girl. Little avoided police during a high-speed chase and arrived at Baker’s house with his hostage. Baker was preparing the house to be sold, according to a summary of the case in the order.
Police found Little and he eventually released the girl, who told the police that Little was armed, hiding in the attic, and intoxicated on methamphetamine. A shootout with Little ensued with the police firing tear gas grenades into the house. Little failed to surrender, so the police used explosives to take down the front and garage doors and used a tank-like vehicle to take down the backyard fence. Upon entry, police discovered Little had killed himself.
Baker sued and a federal district court found in 2022 that the damage weighed in at about $50,000. Her dog was also left permanently blind and deaf.
Baker’s insurance company declined to cover the damage, and the city denied her claim for compensation. The district court found that the damage caused by the city was considered a taking under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and a jury awarded almost $60,000 in damages.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling in October 2023.
The circuit court rejected the city’s claim that “the Takings Clause never requires compensation when a government agency destroys property pursuant to its police power.” However, the court held that the takings clause does not demand compensation for property damage when it was “objectively necessary” for officers to cause the damage in an emergency situation to stave off “imminent harm” to people, according to the summary.
Baker was represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm.
Earlier this year, IJ senior attorney Jeffrey Redfern commented on the case.
“The Supreme Court has a chance to make it clear that the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause applies to police powers, just like it does to any other government action that destroys innocent people’s property.”
