Here's the latest in a case we've been following.
Now before you get all worked up about the Texas Supreme Court agreeing that the private company proposing to build a bullet train between Dallas and Houston may exercise the sovereign power of eminent domain (see Miles v. Texas Central RR & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 20-0393 (June 24, 2022), remember that this is a case involving only the construction of Texas statutes. Not the court deciding whether the state's delegation of eminent domain power conforms to some constitutional public use standard.
That being said, the opinion may have limited reach (thank goodness) but is still worth reviewing for those of you not in Texas.
Property owners objected to the company taking their property, arguing that it did not qualify under Texas statutes delegating the state's eminent domain power to a "railroad" and to "interurban electric railways." This thing may call itself a train, but to the property owners, it didn't look like a train. And simply calling yourself a train doesn't cut it. As the opinion noted:
- Texas Central Railroad did not own any railroad tracks;
- Texas Central Railroad did not own any rolling stock (trains);
- Texas Central Railroad had not constructed any train stations;
- Texas Central Railroad had secured only a small fraction of the necessary financing for the project; and
- Texas Logistics had no employees, officers, or office space independent of Texas Central Railroad.
Slip op. at 6.
The Supreme Court rejected the owners' two main arguments. First, you don't need to be actually operating a railroad in order to meet the statutory definition of "railroad." Lack of tracks and trains doesn't disqualify a company from operating a railroad.
Second, just because this type of electric bullet train was probably not in the minds of Texas legislators back when the statute was adopted when electric streetcars were high-tech (1907), the plain language of the statute encompassed this company: "corporation[s] chartered for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between municipalities in this state for the transportation of . . . passengers."
The majority also rejected the argument that qualifying under the statutory definition wasn't enough, that there must be some reasonable probability that an interurban railway company will actually build an interurban railway:
While both the Texas Constitution and our precedent preclude an entity from obtaining condemnation authority by checking a box, they do not support the reasonable-probability-of-completion test Miles proposes, which would constitute an unwarranted sea change in eminent-domain law with far-reaching consequences.We agree with Miles that, under Denbury I, the Texas Central Entities do not qualify as interurban electric railway companies with associated eminent-domain authority merely by claiming as much in their charters, the equivalent of “checking a box.” However, there is no dispute that the Texas Central Entities (1) were actually chartered for the statutorily authorized purpose of “constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between municipalities in this state for the transportation of freight, passengers, or both freight and passengers,” TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 131.012; and (2) are engaged in activities in furtherance of that purpose. Nor is there any question that the proposed railway is for “public use.” See TEX. CONST. art. X, § 2 (“Railroads heretofore constructed or which may hereafter be constructed in this state are hereby declared public highways, and railroad companies, common carriers.”); see also West v. Whitehead, 238 S.W. 976, 978 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1922, writ ref’d) (“If a railroad invoking the power of eminent domain is to be a highway, or a common carrier, and open to the promiscuous and uniform use of the public, such facts conclusively make it a public use . . . .”). Miles’s argument that the Texas Central Entities must further show a reasonable probability that the railway will be successfully completed finds no support in Denbury or the Constitution.
Slip op. at 23, 24-25 (footnote omitted).
So this is a train. At least it isn't a fish.
More on the case here, including links to the multiple dissents, concurring opinions, briefs, and arguments.
Now that it has legal clearance, will the project move forward? We shall see.
Miles v. Texas Central RR & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 20-0393 (Tex. June 24, 2022)
