Note: this is the second of our posts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Devillier v. Texas. The first — which tries to put the weird post-opinion controversy over which party “won” at the Supreme Court into its proper perspective — is here.
In this post we’ll cover the case’s facts, the odd procedural path that Texas dragged everyone through (only ultimately abandon a key position once at the Supreme Court), and what the Court actually decided, if anything.
The State Flooding Private Property is a Taking Under Everyone’s Constitutions
After the Texas DOT flooded his property as part of a freeway project by creating a dam that caused rainwater to collect on his land, Devillier and other landowners sued the State of Texas for a taking, aka inverse condemnation.
The state flooding someone’s property is one of those “classic” cases which are considered takings,



