Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Judgment Date: 27 May 1946
Where Reported: 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Legal Issues in United States v Causby
The legal issue in United States v Causby was whether the frequent, low-altitude overflights by military aircraft constituted a ‘taking’ of private property under the Fifth Amendment.
United States v Causby explored the extent of a property owner’s rights to the airspace above their land and whether the government’s use of this airspace for military flights amounted to a compensable taking requiring just compensation.
Material Facts in United States v Causby
Thomas Lee Causby and his wife owned a small chicken farm near a municipal airport in Greensboro, North Carolina.
The glide path for aircraft landing at the airport passed directly over their property, with some planes flying as low as 83 feet above the ground.
This low-altitude and frequent flying by military aircraft, starting from 1942, caused significant disruptions.
The noise and glare from the planes led to the death of several chickens due to fright, decreased egg production, and rendered the property unsuitable for its intended use as a chicken farm.
The Causbys experienced loss of sleep, nervousness, and fright due to the constant overflights.
They sued the United States government, claiming that these overflights constituted a ‘taking’ of their property, for which they sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
See article: When Does a Drone’s Flight Become Trespassing? The Legalities of Drones Over Private Properties
Judgment in United States v Causby
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Causbys, holding that the frequent and low-altitude flights over their property constituted a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court recognised that while the airspace is a public highway and part of the public domain, flights that are so low and frequent as to directly and immediately interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land amount to a taking of property.
As a result, the Causbys were entitled to compensation for the government’s appropriation of their property’s airspace for military flights.
The Reason for Decision in United States v Causby
The Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court noted that the traditional common law doctrine, which stated that property ownership extends “to the periphery of the universe,” was outdated and not applicable in the modern age, where air travel is common.
However, this general principle did not negate the Causbys’ specific situation, where the low and frequent overflights had a direct impact on their use of the property.
The Court acknowledged that the government’s use of airspace was a necessary part of modern life and air travel, but this did not nullify property rights on the ground.
It determined that landowners have rights to the airspace above their land to the extent that they can occupy or use it in connection with the land.
The Court reasoned that flights which interfere with this use constitute a physical invasion of the property, akin to a trespass or more traditional forms of taking.
Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the navigable airspace, which is within the public domain and subject to public use, and the immediate reaches of airspace above land, which remains the property of the landowner.
In this case, the military flights were not within the navigable airspace as defined by Congress, but rather were within the immediate reaches above the Causbys’ land.
Therefore, the government’s intrusion into this space, which had a substantial and direct effect on the land’s use and value, was deemed a taking requiring compensation.
The Court emphasised that the measure of a taking is determined by the owner’s loss rather than the taker’s gain. In this case, the Causbys’ loss was substantial, as the overflights effectively destroyed the use of their property for its intended purpose.
The Court concluded in United States v Causby that the government had imposed a servitude on the land, for which the Causbys were entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, United States v Causby established a significant precedent regarding property rights and airspace.
The case clarified that while the airspace is a public domain, landowners retain rights to the immediate reaches above their property.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v Causby acknowledged the balance between the public interest in air travel and individual property rights, determining that substantial and direct interference with the use and enjoyment of land constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
United States v Causby has had lasting implications on property law, particularly in the context of modern aviation, and set the groundwork for future cases dealing with similar issues of airspace and property rights.
