* Doe v. United States (Ct. Fed. Claims Nov. 10, 2010) (rejecting 5th Am takings claim by Iraqi citizen in re Fallujah)
A very interesting opinion from the Court of Federal Claims three weeks ago. In brief, the plaintiff is an Iraqi resident of Fallujah whose home was occupied by Marines in the summer of 2004. It seems the Marines razed a wall surrounding the property, and that after the Marines departed unknown persons ransacked the house itself. Coalition forces offered a settlement payment as compensation for the fence and for displacing the plaintiff, but the plaintiff elected instead to sue, invoking the 5th Amendment Takings Clause.
In this opinion, the Court of Federal Claims relies on Eisentrager (and distinguishes Boumediene) en route to determining that a non-citizen with no substantial connections to the United States lacks standing to invoke 5th Amendment protections, and also concludes that the Takings Clause in any event does not require the government to pay compensation where, as here, its property-related actions stem from military necessity (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that necessity should be construed in this context as requiring temporal imminence). The 55-page opinion explores these and other matters in considerable detail, and is well worth a read.