“DeVillier originally sued in state court, and Texas filed to remove the case to federal court, where it defended against the lawsuit by claiming that the Fifth Amendment didn’t apply to the state because Congress hadn’t passed a law expressly saying it did.”
Thank you. I was just getting ready to point out the same sentence.
That’s correct. There’s two things going on here.
First, the cynical side of things is that TX was trying to get the case dismissed by removing it to federal court and then claiming that there is no private right of action under the Fifth Amendment to get just compensation. Paxton’s press release claiming total victory from the unanimous decision is amazingly cynical and misleading - yes, TX won in terms of the very narrow scope of the opinion, but to get there TX had to concede in oral argument that the 5th Amendment does apply to the states and therefore TX statutes for takings of private property have to incorporate the 5th Amendment.
Second, and however, the opinion says that the court has to presume that states are following the constitution and so if a state has a statute and procedures that allow takings claims then landowners have to start there and state law will apply provided that it incorporates and follows the 5th Amendment.