Vicki Baker was out of town when a fugitive took refuge in her home. After a lengthy standoff, the SWAT team stormed her house, launching tear gas through windows, knocking down doors, and demolishing fences. The damage from the raid was so extensive that flooring, drywall and insulation had to be removed, and a hazmat team had to dispose of nearly all of the personal property inside the house. What’s worse, both the City and Baker’s insurance company refused to pay for repairs, leaving Baker to foot the bill. Baker sued the City for the cost of the damage to her home, arguing that its failure to pay violated the Takings Clause. Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding instead that the government is not obligated to pay for property damage if the damage was caused by police action “necessary” for public safety. Baker now asks the Supreme Court to hear her case and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

The Cato Institute, along with Professors Julia D. Mahoney and Ilya Somin, filed an amici brief in support of Baker’s petition. History and tradition demonstrate that when the government deliberately destroys an innocent owner’s property in service of the public good, it is obligated to compensate the owner. But by carving out an exception for “necessary” police action, the Fifth Circuit departed from Supreme Court precedent and deepened a circuit split. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to clarify when the Takings Clause requires compensation for damage to private property. The Court should take the case and reverse the Fifth Circuit.