The Constitution Doesn’t Apply to the States

Last November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to hear a takings case brought by a Texas farmer against the state. The court argued that “federal courts have no jurisdiction in takings cases against states.” In other words, the Constitution doesn’t apply to states.

The case stems from the state’s expansion of Interstate 10 near Rickie DeVillier’s farm. The expansion included erecting concrete barriers that wound up turning DeVillier’s land into a lake during heavy rains—something that isn’t uncommon in southeast Texas. About one-hundred cows and horses have been killed and countless crops were lost during the flooding. The state refused to pay for the damages, and DeVillier sued.

In refusing to hear the same, the Court of Appeals

didn’t rule against DeVillier. It simply said that Congress never passed a law allowing Americans to sue states for taking their property, so the Fifth Amendment’s property protections do not apply to DeVillier or anyone else.

Claiming that the Constitution only applies to the federal government is a common argument used by advocates of both “states’ rights” and “local control.” The latter declares that states should be permitted to enact laws that violate individual rights, while the former declares that municipalities should have that privilege. If states or local governments can violate rights, then the Constitution has been tossed in the trash can.

The Court of Appeals completely ignored the fact that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government, not the powers and freedom of individuals. The Court is saying that unless Congress authorizes citizens to engage in a particular action, then it is illegal. And that is the stance of tyrants.