328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946)
Respondents Thomas Lee Causby and his wife purchased 2.8 acres of land near an airport outside Greensboro, North Carolina in 1934.1 The property included a dwelling house and outbuildings used for raising chickens.2 The end of the airport's northwest-southeast runway was 2,220 feet from the barn and 2,275 feet from the house, and the glide path passed over the property at 83 feet above the ground.3
In April 1942 the airport was taken over by the Greensboro-High Point Municipal Airport Authority.4 In May 1942 the United States leased the airport for military operations beginning June 1, 1942, with the lease renewable until 1967 or the end of the national emergency.5 Military planes including four-motored heavy bombers used the northwest-southeast runway about four percent of the time for takeoffs and seven percent for landings, frequently flying low over the Causbys' land and buildings.6
The flights caused the chickens to become frightened, resulting in the loss of approximately 150 birds that flew into walls, a decline in egg production, and the eventual destruction of the commercial chicken business.7 The noise and glare from the planes also deprived the family of sleep and caused them to become nervous and frightened.8 Although no accidents occurred on the property, several happened nearby.9
The Causbys brought suit in the Court of Claims, which found that their property had depreciated in value due to the flights and entered judgment for them in the amount of $2,000.10 The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to consider the case.11
Whether frequent and regular low-altitude flights of army and navy aircraft over private land constitute a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment?12
The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the government takes private property for public use.13 A taking occurs through direct government invasion that substantially interferes with the owner's use and enjoyment of land.14 Such an invasion may impose a permanent easement of flight through frequent low-altitude overflights that destroy the land's beneficial use.15 This holds even if the planes do not touch the surface.16 The navigable airspace above minimum safe altitudes belongs to the public.17 Flights below those altitudes that render the property unusable for its intended purpose are compensable.18
Yes. Respondents Thomas Lee Causby and his wife purchased 2.8 acres near the Greensboro airport in 1934 and used the property for a dwelling house and commercial chicken farming with outbuildings.19 In May 1942 the United States leased the airport for military operations beginning June 1, 1942.20 Heavy bombers along with other military planes used the northwest-southeast runway four percent of the time for takeoffs and seven percent for landings.21 They flew as low as 83 feet directly over the Causbys' land and buildings.22 These flights killed approximately 150 chickens by causing them to fly into walls.23 They destroyed egg production and ended the commercial chicken business.24 They deprived the family of sleep and caused nervousness and fright.25
The Court of Claims found the property depreciated in value and that the United States had taken an easement.26 The direct and frequent invasions at low altitude appropriated the immediate reaches of airspace essential to the land's use in the same manner as a physical entry.27 This imposed a servitude equivalent to a fee interest.28 It constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.29
The frequent and regular low-altitude flights constitute a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Burton
Justice Black dissented on the ground that the flights and resulting noise and glare at most amounted to a tort rather than a constitutional taking.31 Extending the Fifth Amendment to guarantee relief for such disturbances would impose rigid barriers that hamper Congress's power to regulate air navigation under the Commerce Clause.32 He emphasized that Congress had declared complete national sovereignty in the airspace.33
Congress defined navigable airspace subject to a public right of freedom of transit.34 The Civil Aeronautics Authority holds exclusive power to set safe altitudes.35 No showing was made that the flights violated any regulation.36
In his view the Constitution entrusts adjustments for air transportation problems to Congress rather than to judicial imposition of absolute restraints.37 The majority's approach would thwart legislative solutions for new national problems arising from technological advances.38
Whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over a claim arising from such flights?39
Under 28 U.S.C. § 250(1) the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims founded upon the Constitution of the United States or upon any contract with the Government of the United States.40
Yes. The Causbys' claim that the United States took an easement over their property by low-altitude military flights is founded upon the Fifth Amendment.41 Because the claim rests on a constitutional taking rather than an implied contract, the Court of Claims possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate it.42
The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over the claim arising from the flights.43
Whether the findings of fact adequately describe the nature and duration of any easement taken over the property?44
No. The Court of Claims findings contain no precise description of the easement in terms of frequency of flight, permissible altitude, or type of airplane.48 Nor is there any finding whether the easement taken was temporary or permanent.49 Although the opinion stated the easement was permanent, the absence of findings on these material issues prevents proper determination of the interest that vested in the United States.50
The findings of fact do not adequately describe the nature and duration of the easement taken over the property.51