United States v.

Causby
Facts. Respondents own 2.8 acres near an airport outside of Greensboro, North Carolina.
Respondents property contained a house and a chicken farm. The end of one of the runways of the
airport was 2,220 feet from Respondents property, and the glide path passed over the property at 83
feet, which is 67 feet above the house, 63 feet above the barn, and 18 feet above the highest tree. The
use by the United States of this airport is pursuant to a lease beginning June 1, 1942, and ending June
30, 1942, with provisions for renewal until June 30, 1967, or six months after the end of the national
emergency, whichever is earlier. The United States four motored bombers make loud noises when flying
above the property, and have very bright lights. Respondents chicken farm production had to stop,
because 150 chickens were killed by flying into walls from fright. In the Court of Claims, it was found that
the United States had taken an easement over the property on June 1, 1942, and that the val
ue of the property depreciation as the result of the easement was $2,000.00. The United States
petitioned for certiorari, which was granted.
Issue. Has the Respondents property been taken within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment?
Held. Yes. But the case is remanded for a determination of the value of the easement and whether the
easement was permanent or temporary.
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 the Respondents 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 owners loss, not the takers 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. The court
does not set the precise limits of the line of demarcation. Flights over private land are not a taking,
unless, like here, they are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the
enjoyment of the land. The Court of Claims must, upon remand, determine the value of the easement
and whether it is a temporary or permanent easement.