United States v. Causby

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The Court held that title to land includes domain over the lower altitudes. The United States Government claimed a public right to fly over Causby's farm, while Causby argued such low-altitude flights entitled the property owner to just compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment." The findings were two-fold. The court rejected the United States Government's assertion to "possess" and "control" airspace down to ground level, and it nullified the doctrine that property extends indefinitely upward.
Background.
Thomas Lee Causby was a land owner less than a half mile from the end of the runway of Lindley Field, an airstrip in Greensboro, North Carolina. During World War II, the United States military flew planes into the airstrip and as low as above Causby's Farm
thereby interfering with the productive use of the Causby farm. Vibrations and sounds caused by the aircraft prevented use of property as a chicken farm, killing over 150 chickens. After losing in lower courts, the Government maintained their claims to fly through all the airspace with impunity.
Under common law, a person who owns the soil also owns the space indefinitely upward, ""ad coelum" or to the heavens".
The US referenced the 1926 "Air Commerce Act" in which the US government claimed to 'possess' all airspace.
An appellate court ruled that a land owner's domain includes the airspace above it, and ruled that Causby was entitled to just compensation for the government having 'Taken' his property by allowing overflights through the airspace above his property.
The United States appealed this ruling against them, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, regarding the contradiction between the common laws of property ownership (without any height limit) against the assertion of a federal claim to possess all airspace above the United States down to ground level.
Holding.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the government's claim to 'possess' the space down to ground level. The Court recognized that a claim of property ownership indefinitely upward "has no place in the modern world." In so doing, the Court rejected the "ad coelum" doctrine.
However, the Court also held that the public's right of flight does not extend downward to the earth's surface:
While the Court held that "[f]lights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land," it also held that in this particular case, there was "a diminution in value of [Causby's] property" and that "the frequent, low-level flights were the direct and immediate cause." This meant that the government's authorization of such low-level flights constituted a "taking" of Causby's property, and under the Constitution's takings clause, he was owed compensation.
On remand, the Court of Claims was tasked with defining the value of the "property interests" that had been taken from Causby by flyovers. Because the lowest plane flew at , the tallest object on Causby's land was tall, and flights above were considered within the public easement declared by Congress, the Court needed to determine the value owed the Farmer for public use of his airspace between . The Court did not need to compensate the farmer for use below , because the planes did not fly below that height. Compensation was owed based on the occupancy of the property and not damage to chickens.
Dissent.
Justice Black, joined by Justice Burton, dissented with the decision. Black wrote that the majority opinion created "an opening wedge for an unwarranted judicial interference with the power of Congress to develop solutions for new and vital national problems." The minority opinion was predicated on interference with private property being resolved at the State Court level through tort law, rather than in Federal Court under a Constitutional review. However, the US government filed the appeal based upon an assertion of ownership to low altitude airspace, which the court roundly rejected, and any case filed by the federal government becomes a federal court issue. The dissenting opinion would have forced the issue of compensation into State court, which was later rejected in "Griggs v. Allegheny", 369 US 84 (1962), recognizing the need for takings claim to be brought under the US Constitution and litigated in federal court.