In July, we posted the opening brief in Ladd v. United States, the case in which the Court of Federal claims dismissed the property owners' Fifth Amendment takings claim stemming from a rail conversion. The CFC held that the claim was filed past the six-year Tucker Act statute of limitations even though the government did not provide the owners notice of the action that they assert was a taking.
The appeal, now pending in the Federal Circuit, asks whether the federal government can take an owner’s property without providing any notice to the landowner, and avoid its constitutional obligation to pay compensation because the statute of limitations began to run when the government issued the order, not when the landowner had notice of the government’s order taking their property? Our colleague Thor Hearne has sent along the recently-filed Reply Brief. which argues:
The government defends the CFC’s dismissal by asking this Court to embrace the amazing proposition that a federal agency may issue an edict taking an owner’s property and, by not telling the owner of its order until after the limitations period has expired, escape the government’s constitutional obligation to justly compensate the owner.The government’s position is repugnant to the fundamental principles embodied in The Fifth Amendment.The CFC should be reversed and this case remanded to determine the compensation these landowners are due.
Br. at 4.