Property (Atty.
Labitag)
II. OWNERSHIP; D. Limitations of Real Right of Ownership;
2. Specific Limitation; a by law; i. scattered provisions
Case Digest
United States v. Causby
Brief Fact Summary. Respondents claim that their property
was taken, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, by the
regular army and navy aircraft flights over their house and
chicken farm.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The airspace is a public highway, but
if the landowner is to have the full enjoyment of his land, he
must have exclusive control over the immediate reaches of the
enveloping atmosphere.
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.
Dissent. The dissent would reverse the decision of the Court of
Claims and hold that there has been no taking within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment. This is because of the modern
nature of the airplane, and the desire to avoid confusion.
Discussion. The national emergency, World War II, meant that
the airport, which was not previously used by large planes,
Property (Atty. Labitag)
II. OWNERSHIP; D. Limitations of Real Right of Ownership;
2. Specific Limitation; a by law; i. scattered provisions

would be the home to large bombers. The use of the airspace must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the
above Respondents home and farm was not a problem enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the
previously, because the flights were sporadic and not nearly as Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a
loud as the bombers. violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and
United States v. Causby immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the
land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low,
Facts of the case frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the
Thomas Lee Causby owned a chicken farm outside of government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled
Greensboro, North Carolina. The farm was located near an to compensation. (Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died on
airport used regularly by the United States military. According April 22; Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the
to Causby, noise from the airport regularly frightened the consideration or decision in the case, leaving the court with 7
animals on his farm, resulting in the deaths of several chickens. members.)
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.
Question
Did the flying of planes by the United States military over
Causby's farm constitute a violation of the Takings Clause of
the Fifth Amendment?
Conclusion
Yes, to an extent. In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William
O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the ancient common law
doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas
noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every
transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless
trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However,
while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below
the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled
that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he