Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
2012 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.[1]
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued October 3, 2012 Decided December 4, 2012 | |
Full case name | Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States |
Docket no. | 11-597 |
Citations | 568 U.S. 23 (more) 133 S. Ct. 511; 184 L. Ed. 2d 417; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9409; 75 ERC 1417; 81 U.S.L.W. 4013 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiff, 87 Fed. Cl. 594 (2009); reversed, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 566 U.S. 920 (2012). |
Holding | |
Government-induced recurrent floodings, even if temporary in duration, are not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V |
The case was brought by an Arkansas state agency, alleging that federal flood control practices along the Black River had damaged valuable timber on state-owned lands. The commission's lawsuit was supported by advocates for property rights, as well as by fish, forestry and wildlife groups.[2] In opposition, the federal government cited the concern that an adverse ruling could expose it to massive liability for its nationwide flood control efforts.
The Court's decision revitalized the Arkansas agency's lawsuit, which had been reversed on appeal after a $5.7 million judgment had been entered in its favor against the U.S. government. The Supreme Court restricted its holding to the issue of whether temporary flooding was categorically excluded from qualifying as a taking, leaving to the lower appellate court to review the remaining legal issues and merits of the judgment on remand.