Background
In July two thousand and twenty, an armed fugitive held a fifteen-year-old girl hostage in Vicki Baker’s home. Police used armored vehicles, toxic gas grenades, and explosives to resolve the situation, severely damaging the property. The City refused to compensate Baker for the damage. Baker filed suit asserting takings claims under the federal and Texas constitutions. A jury awarded her fifty-nine thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars and fifty-nine cents. The Fifth Circuit previously reversed the federal claim in Baker I, ruling that the necessity exception to the Takings Clause precluded compensation. The case was remanded, and Baker elected to pursue relief under the Texas Constitution. The district court granted her reelection of remedy and entered final judgment in her favor.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and found no abuse of discretion given the years of litigation and the trial that occurred. On the merits of the Texas takings claim, the court distinguished the federal necessity exception from Texas law. While the federal Takings Clause may not require compensation when property is destroyed to prevent imminent harm, the Texas Constitution protects against more types of government action. The court relied on the Supreme Court of Texas decision in Steele v. City of Houston, which held that innocent third parties are entitled to compensation even when police destroy property to apprehend escapees. The court rejected the City’s argument that a necessity defense applied, noting that mere convenience does not suffice and that the City failed to prove a great public necessity defense under Texas law. The court also affirmed the district court’s application of Texas reelection of remedies law, finding no risk of double recovery since the federal claim had been reversed.
While the City is correct that Steele stated that the City of Houston may defend its actions by proof of a great public necessity, the Supreme Court of Texas explained that mere convenience would not suffice, and uncompensated destruction of property has been occasionally justified by reason of war, riot, pestilence or other great public calamity.
Baker v. City of McKinney, No. 25-40396 (5th Cir. May 22, 2026)
What it means going forward
Property owners may seek compensation under the Texas Constitution for police damage even when the federal necessity exception bars a federal takings claim. The decision clarifies that the necessity defense is not available under Texas law for police actions taken during emergencies unless a great public calamity is proven.