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.”
If the local government had taken the home to construct a public park, the homeowner would “undoubtedly … be entitled to compensation,” but because the police here damaged the home “to protect local residents and themselves from an armed and dangerous individual,” the homeowner alone “must bear the cost of that public benefit,” Sotomayor wrote in a statement that Gorsuch joined.
The Supreme Court “has yet to squarely address whether the government can … require some individuals to bear such a public burden.”
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.
Little knew the house because he previously performed handyman work there.
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 clear away 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.
“Homeowners’ insurance policies generally do not provide coverage for damage caused by the government,” the Supreme Court noted in its order.
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.
“Because both parties agreed that the McKinney police’s actions were objectively necessary, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Baker was not entitled to compensation.”
Baker was represented by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm.
Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern said in a statement that the Supreme Court will eventually have to deal with the fact that the courts of appeal and other lower courts are divided on the issue.
“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,” he said.
Baker also issued 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,” she said.
“If police can destroy my home and leave me with the bill, it can happen to anyone.”
The Institute for Justice said even though the Supreme Court has ruled in this case, it will continue to represent Baker as she pursues a claim under the Texas Constitution.
One of the city’s attorneys, Edwin P. Voss Jr. of Brown and Hofmeister in Richardson, Texas, provided a comment to The Epoch Times.
“The City is pleased that the Supreme Court has denied further review of this case,” which leaves in place the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.
“Ms. Baker’s legal counsel has consistently praised the McKinney Police Department’s actions in this matter,” Voss said in an email. “The City will continue to defend the actions of its law enforcement employees.”
