In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richie DeVillier, a landowner in Chambers County, Texas, who sought compensation from the state for damages to his property. DeVillier had sued the state in 2020 after his land repeatedly flooded following changes made to Interstate 10.

The original lawsuit argued that DeVillier had a right to damages under both state law and the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which prohibits governments from taking private property for public use without compensation. Texas officials initially sought to dismiss the case, claiming it was not a Fifth Amendment issue and moving it to federal courts.

However, lower courts disagreed, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. During oral arguments in January, the Texas Attorney General's Office stated that the state would accept the case if it were updated to reflect only state law. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, determined that Texas should consider the case under state law, allowing DeVillier to pursue compensation.

DeVillier's lawsuit is representative of 120 other property owners who also experienced significant damage during Hurricane Harvey as a result of the barrier. This ruling could potentially have broad implications for these property owners.

Dan Charest, attorney for DeVillier, celebrated the ruling, stating that it is great for their clients and for the citizens of Texas. Charest had brought the original lawsuit forward in 2020 and attended the arguments before the Supreme Court in January. He expressed satisfaction that their initial prediction about the case making its way to the highest court and ending in a win had come true.

While this ruling allows Texans whose property is damaged by the state to pursue relief in state courts, it does not address whether landowners in states without similar laws can sue on the federal level. Charest mentioned that this matter will have to be decided at another time.

Attorney General Ken Paxton also claimed victory in a statement, emphasizing the importance of property rights in a free society. He stated that citizens should sue under Texas law unless Congress has said otherwise, and he was pleased that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with this viewpoint.

However, Charest disagreed with Paxton's assertion, stating that he would have willingly amended the lawsuit to fall under state law if Texas had suggested it initially.

This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court allows DeVillier and other property owners in Texas to seek compensation for damages, underlining the significance of property rights. The decision signals a potential shift in how landowners in the state can pursue relief for damages caused by the government.