Walton County Appeals Ruling on Beach Access, Facing Potential Compensation to Property Owners
The legal battle over beach access in Walton County, Florida, continues as county officials seek a full appeals court review of a decision that could require compensation to beachfront property owners for restrictions imposed during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Walton County last week formally requested a hearing before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, escalating a dispute stemming from a 2020 ordinance that temporarily closed beaches – both public and private – to curb the spread of the virus. A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based court previously sided with property owners, arguing the closure constituted an unconstitutional “taking” of property.
The core of the case revolves around the Takings Clause of the U.S. constitution, which guarantees just compensation when private property is taken for public use.Though, this case differs from typical takings claims, focusing not on the closure of beaches to the public, but on the inability of property owners to access areas of the beach they privately own.On November 17th, the panel instructed a district judge to determine the amount of “just compensation” owed to the landowners.
In a 14-page petition, the county contends that the panel’s decision clashes with established legal precedent, including a 2021 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. County officials maintain the temporary ordinance did not result in a taking of property, but rather a legitimate exercise of governmental power during a public health crisis.
The county further argues that any analysis of a potential taking should be conducted on an individualized basis, considering the specific circumstances of each property owner. “Under these circumstances, the takings analysis should be individualized for each landowner’s property and would be dependent upon the nature, frequency, and duration of any incursions by government officials on each property,” the petition stated, “and not evaluated as a blanket taking of all of the landowners’ beach front properties for the entirety of the 28 days the ordinance was in effect.”
The lawsuit originated after the Walton county Commission approved the ordinance in early April 2020, aiming to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, which had begun to significantly impact the state. The ordinance was lifted at the end of April 2020, and beaches were reopened to the public.Under Florida law, private beach property extends to the mean high-water line, and the plaintiffs also asserted their littoral rights, guaranteeing access to the water.
The November ruling overturned a 2021 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who initially dismissed the property owners’ arguments. judge Barbara Lagoa, writing for the panel, emphasized that “there is no COVID exception to the Takings Clause.” She added, “Instead, the government must respect constitutional rights during public emergencies, lest the tools of our security become the means of our undoing.”
The panel’s 27-page opinion asserted the ordinance “physically appropriated the landowners’ property as it barred their physical access to the land.” It specifically rejected the argument that the ordinance merely restricted the use of the property, clarifying that prohibiting physical access is distinct from limiting how property can be used.
Judge Hinkle, in his original ruling, had argued that landowners retained use of much of their property and that the county commission was acting within its “police power in a public-health emergency.” He explained,”The bottom line is this. The Board of County Commissioners faced an escalating pandemic that posed an enormous threat to public health.There was no way to know at that time how many people would die or become gravely ill and how best to minimize the number. Decisive action seemed appropriate. In closing the beaches, the county exhibited no animus toward these plaintiffs or anyone else. Rather, the commissioners exercised their best judgment, based on the limited knowledge available at the time, on how to preserve life and health.”
The outcome of Walton county’s appeal will likely set a precedent for similar cases involving temporary government restrictions on private property during public health emergencies, raising critical questions about the balance between public safety and constitutional rights. The case underscores the enduring relevance of the Takings Clause, even in the face of unprecedented circumstances.
