''United States v. Causby'', 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a landmark

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The United States government claimed a public right to fly over Thomas Lee Causby's farm located near an airport in

Greensboro, North Carolina Greensboro (; formerly Greensborough) is a city in and the county seat of Guilford County, North Carolina, United States. It is the List of municipalities in North Carolina, third-most populous city in North Carolina after Charlotte, North Car ...

. Causby argued that the government's low-altitude flights entitled him to just compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.Huebert, Jacob H. (2011-04-18
Who Owns the Sky?

Mises Institute Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, or Mises Institute, is a libertarian nonprofit think tank headquartered in Auburn, Alabama, United States. It is named after the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973). It ...

The Court held that a taking had occurred and nullified the

common law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipres ...

doctrine that ownership of property extended indefinitely upward. The court also affirmed that navigable airspace was public domain and held that flights which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of real property constitute a taking. Much of the holding has been superseded by more recent cases and changes in the regulations relied upon.

Background

Thomas Lee Causby was a land owner less than a half mile from the end of the runway of Lindley Field, an airstrip in

.Nagy, John A. "Airport Noise Issue Not New: Chicken Farm Case Set Legal Precedent in 1946 Court Ruling". ''Greensboro News and Record'' (Greensboro, North Carolina). October 10, 1998. During

World War II World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a world war that lasted from 1939 to 1945. It involved the vast majority of the world's countries—including all of the great powers—forming two opposing ...

, the

United States military The United States Armed Forces are the military forces of the United States. The armed forces consists of six service branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The president of the United States is th ...

flew planes into the airstrip and as low as above Causby's Farm thereby interfering with the productive use of the Causby farm. Vibrations and sounds caused by the aircraft prevented use of property as a chicken farm, killing more than 150 chickens. The Court of Claims ruled that a land owner's domain includes the airspace above it, and ruled that Causby was entitled to just compensation for the government having 'Taken' his property by conducting overflights through the airspace above his property. The United States appealed this ruling against them, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, regarding the contradiction between the common laws of property ownership (without any height limit) against the assertion of a federal claim that flights are made within the navigable airspace without any physical invasion of the property of the landowners, there has been no taking of property.

Holding

The Court recognized that a claim of property ownership indefinitely upward "has no place in the modern world." effectively nullifying the common law ad coelum doctrine. The Court affirmed the right to of transit through navigable airspace: However, the Court held that the flights occurred outside of navigable airspace: Ultimately the Court agreed with the Court of Claims and held that a taking had occurred because flight occurred outside of navigable airspace : This meant that the government conducting such low-level flights constituted a "taking" of Causby's property, and under the Constitution's takings clause, he was owed compensation. On remand, the Court of Claims was tasked with defining the value of the "property interests" that had been taken from Causby by flyovers. Because the lowest plane flew at , the tallest object on Causby's land was tall, and flights above the tallest terrain were considered within the public easement declared by Congress, the Court needed to determine the value owed the farmer for public use of his airspace between . The Court of Claims did not need to compensate the farmer for use below , because the planes did not fly below that height. Compensation was owed based on the occupancy of the property, and not damage to chickens.

Dissent

Justice Black, joined by Justice Burton, dissented with the decision. Black wrote that the majority opinion created: :... “an opening wedge for an unwarranted judicial interference with the power of Congress to develop solutions for new and vital national problems.” The minority opinion was predicated on interference with private property being resolved at the State Court level through tort law, rather than in a federal court with

constitutional A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed. When these prin ...

jurisdiction. However, the U.S. government filed its appeal based upon an assertion of ownership to low altitude airspace, which the court roundly rejected, and as a case filed by the federal government it automatically became a federal court issue. The dissenting opinion would have forced the issue of compensation into State court. The principle on which the dissent was based was later rejected in a 1962 ruling that established that all federal “takings” claims need to be litigated in a federal court with jurisdiction over

U.S. Constitution The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the nation ...

al issues.

Changes to reliance and precedent

In determining that the flights had occurred outside of "navigable airspace", the Court relied on the definition of navigable airspace to reach a decision. At the time, this was defined as "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." However, shortly after this decision, Congress redefined navigable airspace to include "airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft." Currently, some aircraft, such as helicopters, balloons, and ultralights have no minimum safe altitudes. The question of whether takings can occur ''within'' navigable airspace has been addressed in later cases, most notably in '' Griggs v. County of Allegheny'' and ''Branning v. United States.'' The former case held that aircraft noise from operations within navigable airspace did amount to a taking.

References

External links