In a significant victory for property owners—and an important reaffirmation of Fifth Amendment protections—the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Walton County, Florida effected a compensable physical taking when it barred beachfront landowners from accessing and remaining on their own private property during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision in Alford v. Walton County reinforces a principle central to takings law and central to our practice: the government must pay for what it takes, even in moments of crisis. For landowners who find themselves navigating aggressive governmental measures, the ruling provides clear confirmation that constitutional protections do not recede when public emergencies arise.
The Background: Emergency Measures Hit Private Beaches
During March and April 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, Florida’s governor issued several emergency orders aimed at reducing public gatherings and limiting nonessential travel. Those statewide directives addressed public settings and public beaches, but they did not authorize local governments to bar individuals from entering their own private land. Walton County nonetheless adopted Ordinance 2020-09, a sweeping measure that closed all beaches—public and private—throughout the county. More striking still, the ordinance made it a criminal offense for any person, including the owner, to “enter upon or remain on” privately owned beachfront property.
The County enforced this prohibition aggressively. Law enforcement officers used private beaches as patrol routes, sometimes crossing the sand “multiple times an hour.” They parked police vehicles directly on private land to deter entry. They confronted owners who stepped onto their own property and ordered them to leave, at times under explicit threat of arrest. Some owners’ entire parcels fell within the ordinance’s definition of “beach,” meaning they were excluded from all of their land. Others were deterred from making annual trips to their beachfront homes after deputies told them they would not be allowed to access the sand. For nearly a month, private beach owners were displaced from their own land while the County’s officers occupied it to enforce the ban.
Although the ordinance expired at the end of April 2020, the landowners—having lost access to their property during that month—brought suit seeking damages for the taking of their property rights. Their claims included a Fifth Amendment takings claim, as well as due-process, Fourth Amendment, and state-law arguments.
The District Court: COVID Emergency as a Shield
The district court dismissed the owners’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief as moot due to the expiration of the ordinance. It then granted summary judgment for Walton County on the damages claims. In doing so, the court leaned heavily on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 case involving a vaccine mandate, concluding that COVID-19 gave governments broad leeway to impose emergency measures. It also held that the beach-closure ordinance was not a physical taking at all but merely a “use restriction.” Because the Ordinance was temporary and because the owners retained some residual property rights—such as the ability to sell their parcels—the court believed the more flexible Penn Central regulatory-takings test applied, and that the County had not committed a compensable taking.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision: A Textbook Physical Taking
The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court’s analysis in full. In a comprehensive opinion, the court explained that private property consists of a bundle of rights—most centrally, the rights to possess, use, and exclude. Walton County’s ordinance, and its aggressive enforcement, stripped owners of all three. The County barred owners from physically accessing their land. At the same time, its officers entered, patrolled, and parked on that land. The government, not the owner, controlled the property during the closure period.
Under settled Supreme Court precedent, that combination—physical exclusion of the owner and physical occupation by the government—is the hallmark of a per se physical taking. The court noted that even temporary government occupations qualify as takings. The temporary nature of the intrusion affects only the measure of compensation, not whether a taking occurred. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that this rule is consistent with cases recognizing takings in temporary flooding, temporary seizures of personal property, temporary leaseholds, and other short-lived government appropriations of private land.
Equally important, the court made clear that the Takings Clause does not contain a pandemic-based exception. Constitutional protections do not fade during emergencies, and a legitimate public purpose—even the prevention of viral spread—does not eliminate the government’s obligation to compensate property owners for physical appropriations. The district court, the Eleventh Circuit explained, had improperly conflated the “public use” requirement (which Walton County likely satisfied) with the separate constitutional requirement of just compensation.
In short, the County may have had valid public-health reasons for seeking to limit beach crowding, but those reasons do not absolve the County of the duty to pay when it physically commandeers private land.
Mootness: Prospective Claims Gone, Damages Claim Lives On
The Eleventh Circuit did agree that the landowners’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot. The ordinance had expired years earlier, the County had reopened all beaches and kept them open, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of reinstatement. However, that ruling had no effect on the claim for damages. Past takings remain compensable even when the challenged measure is no longer in place. Thus, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to determine the amount of compensation justly owed to the landowners.
Why This Decision Matters Beyond Florida
The implications of this decision extend well beyond Walton County’s beaches. It provides a clear framework for evaluating government action during emergencies and reaffirms that the Takings Clause remains fully applicable even when public officials believe they are acting in the public interest.
It also reinforces the Supreme Court’s modern takings doctrine, particularly the emphasis in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid that government-authorized physical invasions—even if periodic or temporary—trigger categorical takings analysis. For landowners, this decision affirms that when the government physically occupies private property or physically excludes owners from it, a taking has occurred and compensation is due.
This standard matters in a wide range of contexts such as emergency-response measures, disaster-related closures, environmental or coastal-management orders, and other situations in which the government may temporarily displace owners from their land. The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion makes clear that such measures carry constitutional consequences.
Conclusion: A Strong Affirmation of Property Rights
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is a major win for private property owners and for the enduring protection of constitutional rights. By holding that Walton County committed a compensable physical taking when it blocked landowners from their own beaches while allowing officers to occupy and patrol that land, the court reaffirmed that the government must pay when it appropriates private property—no matter the circumstances.
For clients confronting similar intrusions, this case highlights the importance of asserting constitutional rights promptly and fully. Emergencies do not erase the protections the Fifth Amendment guarantees. Whenever the government displaces owners, occupies private land, or appropriates core property rights, the Takings Clause ensures that the burden is not borne by individuals alone, but shared by the public as the Constitution requires.
