Taylor v. United States
959 F.3d 1081
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- Buddy and Donna Taylor bought ranchland near a U.S. Air Force base (1999) and ran cattle; thereafter military training flights occurred low over their property.
- In 2008 the Taylors granted Wind Energy Prototypes, LLC a five‑year exclusive option to obtain an easement to develop wind energy on the property; the contract allowed Wind Energy to terminate during the option period.
- In mid‑2012 Air Force personnel informally told Wind Energy that the FAA would not issue a “No Hazard” determination for structures on the Taylors’ land; Wind Energy then exercised its contractual right to terminate the option.
- The Taylors sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims asserting: (1) a regulatory taking of their contract/property interest caused by the Air Force advice that led to termination; and (2) a physical taking of their airspace caused by low, frequent overflights.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the regulatory‑taking claim and that both claims failed to state a claim; the Federal Circuit reversed the jurisdictional ruling but affirmed dismissal on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over the Taylors’ regulatory‑taking claim (alleging government conduct caused termination of a private contract). | Taylor: The complaint alleges a Fifth Amendment taking; Tucker Act gives CFC jurisdiction over constitutional takings claims. | U.S.: The complaint also alleges tortious conduct, so CFC lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Reversed: CFC has Tucker Act jurisdiction; alleging tortious conduct as well does not deprive the CFC of jurisdiction to hear a takings claim. |
| Whether the Air Force’s informal advice that the FAA would deny a No Hazard designation effected a regulatory taking of the Taylors’ contract interest. | Taylor: Air Force statements caused Wind Energy to terminate; that interference with contract rights effected a regulatory taking of property in the contract/economic expectations. | U.S.: The conduct was noncoercive agency communication within authority; lack of protected property interest because Wind Energy had a contractual right to terminate; no investment‑backed expectations or substantial economic impact under Penn Central. | Affirmed dismissal: Claim fails on the merits—Penn Central factors (economic impact, investment‑backed expectations, character of government action) weigh against finding a regulatory taking. |
| Whether low and frequent military overflights constituted a physical taking of the Taylors’ airspace under Causby. | Taylor: Military flights habitually flew as low as ~20 ft and regularly over the property, interfering with use and enjoyment. | U.S.: Allegations are conclusory and lack necessary detail on frequency, altitude, and concrete interference required by Causby/Brown. | Affirmed dismissal: Complaint insufficiently alleges frequency and the required direct, immediate, substantial interference; physical‑taking claim fails to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (three‑factor test for regulatory takings)
- United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) (overflight takings standard)
- Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same‑facts tort and taking overlap)
- El‑Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Tucker Act jurisdiction despite tort characterization)
- Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (contracts as protected property under Takings Clause)
- Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United States, 808 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (agency information disclosures and takings liability caution)
- Brown v. United States, 73 F.3d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (elements for avigation‑easement/overflight takings)
- Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 U.S. 211 (1986) (ad hoc, factual regulatory‑taking inquiry)
- Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, 853 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (investment‑backed expectations analysis in takings context)
- Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 381 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (factors for reasonable investment‑backed expectations)