United States v. Causby

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Property

328 U.S. 256 (1946)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertytakingsairspaceavigation easementservitudedirect and immediate interferenceimmediate reachesnavigable airspace

Facts

Respondents owned 2.8 acres near an airport used by the United States under a lease, including a house and chicken-raising buildings. Military aircraft frequently flew over the property along the runway glide path at about 83 feet above the ground, sometimes so low they appeared to miss the treetops or blew leaves off the trees. The noise and glare were severe, the family lost sleep and became frightened, and the chicken operation was destroyed after chickens killed themselves by flying into walls from fright and production fell off. The Court of Claims found depreciation in the property's value and concluded that the United States had taken an easement over the land.

Issue

Do frequent and regular military overflights at low altitude over private land constitute a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment? If so, was the Court of Claims' judgment sustainable on findings that did not precisely define the nature and duration of the easement taken?

Rule

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. A landowner has exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere and owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land; invasions of that low airspace are in the same category as invasions of the surface.

🔒

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.

Elena Ruiz owns a lavender farm on the outskirts of Santa Fe, New Mexico. For eight months, cargo planes operated by the federal government have crossed directly over her fields at about 70 feet above the tallest irrigation equipment several times each night, causing workers to abandon late-night harvesting and ruining the farm's use for agritourism lodging because guests cannot sleep.

Elena sues the United States for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Which is the strongest argument that a taking occurred?

Explanation. The majority held that overflights can be a taking when they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Physical contact with the ground is unnecessary if the invasion is of the immediate reaches of superadjacent airspace and substantially impairs surface use. Mere diminution in value alone is not enough, and not all airspace is public in this sense.