US v.

CAUSBY

Facts:
Thomas Lee Causby owned a chicken farm outside of Greensboro, North Carolina. The farm was
located near an airport used regularly by the United States military. According to Causby, noise from
the airport regularly frightened the animals on his farm, resulting in the deaths of several chickens.
The problem became so severe that Causby was forced to abandon his business. Under an ancient
doctrine of the common law, land ownership extended to the space above and below the earth. Using
this doctrine as a basis, Causby sued the United States, arguing that he owned the airspace above his
farm. By flying planes in this airspace, he argued, the government had confiscated his property without
compensation, thus violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States Court of
Claims accepted Causby's argument, and ordered the government to pay compensation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Causby’s property been taken within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment?

HELD:
Yes, to an extent.
The court noted the common law doctrine of ownership of land extending to the sky above the land.
However, the court notes that an act of Congress had given the United States exclusive national
sovereignty over the air space. The court noted that common sense made the common law doctrine
inapplicable.
However, the court found that the common law doctrine did not control the present case. The United
States had conceded in oral argument that if flights over Causbys’ property rendered it uninhabitable
then there would be a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The measure of the value of
the property taken is the owner’s loss, not the taker’s gain.
The airspace is a public highway. But it is obvious that if the landowner is to have the full enjoyment
of his land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.
If this were not true then landowners could not build buildings, plant trees or run fences.
The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. Without
defining a specific limit, the Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of
the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of
the land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court
determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation.
The Court of Claims must, upon remand, determine the value of the easement and whether it is a
temporary or permanent easement.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.