In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic began, Walton County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 2020-09, which closed all beaches within the county, including privately-owned ones, and made accessing them a criminal offense. While the county allowed access to public parks and businesses, landowners were prohibited from entering their own beachfront property. Law enforcement officers enforced the ordinance by patrolling private beaches, parking vehicles at entrances to deter entry, and threatening landowners with arrest if they attempted to access their property. The landowners sued, claiming violations of the Takings Clause, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, reasoning that the government has broad latitude during public health emergencies and that the ordinance was merely a use restriction rather than a physical taking. The landowners appealed, arguing that the ordinance physically appropriated their property rights.
Circuit Judge Lagoa, writing for the panel, analyzed the case under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The court distinguished between physical takings and regulatory takings. A physical taking occurs when the government physically appropriates private property, triggering a per se rule that compensation is required. A regulatory taking involves restrictions on use that must be evaluated under the ad hoc Penn Central test. The court found that Ordinance 2020-09 was a textbook physical taking. The ordinance barred landowners from entering and remaining on their property, while county officers physically occupied the land to exclude them. The court cited Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, noting that the right to exclude is a fundamental element of property rights. By preventing owners from accessing their land and allowing officers to enter at will, the County wrested the rights to possess, use, and exclude from the owners. The court rejected the County's argument that the ordinance was a temporary use restriction. Citing Cedar Point, the court clarified that physical appropriations are takings regardless of whether they are permanent or temporary. The duration of the taking affects only the amount of compensation, not the liability. Furthermore, the court addressed the district court's reliance on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which grants broad police powers during health emergencies. The Eleventh Circuit held that there is no 'COVID exception' to the Takings Clause. While the government may act to protect public health, it must still pay for what it takes. The court reasoned that the existence of a public health emergency does not alter the constitutional requirement of just compensation when a physical taking occurs. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the landowners' claims for prospective relief, such as injunctive relief, because the ordinance had expired and the county had not renewed it, rendering the claims moot. However, the claims for damages regarding the taking remained live.
The decision establishes that local governments cannot bypass the Takings Clause by citing public health emergencies to justify the physical exclusion of property owners from their land. It clarifies that temporary physical appropriations, such as beach closures, are compensable takings. The case is remanded to the district court to calculate the specific amount of just compensation owed to the landowners for the period they were excluded from their property. The ruling leaves open the question of how to measure damages for temporary takings but confirms that the liability is categorical.