Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Taylor v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTakings ClauseTucker Act jurisdictionRegulatory takingsPhysical takingsFifth AmendmentTakings ClauseTucker Act

Facts

The Taylors bought ranch land near an Air Force base in New Mexico in 1999, and later alleged that the Air Force flew training missions over the land, sometimes very low. In 2008 they granted Wind Energy Prototypes, LLC an exclusive five-year option to obtain an easement for wind-energy development, but the agreement allowed Wind Energy to terminate during the option term without fee upon notice. In 2012, Air Force employees allegedly suggested to Wind Energy that the FAA would not issue a No Hazard designation for structures on the property, after which Wind Energy exercised its contractual right to terminate. The Taylors then claimed the Air Force had taken their contract interest and also physically taken their land and airspace through overflights.

Issue

Whether the Court of Federal Claims had Tucker Act jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment takings claim even though the alleged conduct could also be characterized as tortious, and whether the complaint plausibly stated either a regulatory-taking claim based on the loss of the Wind Energy agreement or a physical-taking claim based on military overflights. The appeal also raised whether the physical-taking dismissal should be vacated to permit amendment.

Rule

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a claim expressly founded on the Takings Clause even if the same operative facts may also support a tort theory. A regulatory-taking claim analyzed under Penn Central considers economic impact, interference with distinct reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action; a physical taking by overflights requires allegations that flights were directly over the land, low and frequent, and directly, immediately, and substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of the land. A court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing without granting leave to amend when the plaintiff never sought amendment under Rule 15(a).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Ortega owns farmland outside Tucson, Arizona. She sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that federal range officials intentionally spread false statements to a private solar developer, causing the developer to abandon negotiations, and she expressly pleaded a Fifth Amendment takings claim seeking just compensation while also describing the same conduct as tortious interference.

How should the court rule on the government's argument that Tucker Act jurisdiction is absent because the allegations sound in tort?

Explanation. The majority held that the Court of Federal Claims retains Tucker Act jurisdiction over a claim expressly founded on the Fifth Amendment even when the same operative facts could also be characterized as tortious. The jurisdictional inquiry is distinct from whether the takings claim succeeds on the merits. (Derived from Taylor v. United States (n.d.).)