A federal appeals court ruled that Walton County must compensate landowners who were barred from accessing their private beaches during COVID-19 closures.
Judges found the county’s 2020 ordinance to be an unconstitutional “physical taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
The decision overturns a lower court ruling and requires the county to cover both damages and legal expenses.
Walton County, Fla. — A significant federal appeals court ruling issued Monday determined that Walton County must compensate private beachfront property owners who were prohibited from accessing their land during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a new report by Florida Phoenix, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the county’s 2020 emergency ordinance—which closed both public and private beaches—violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Walton County’s actions amounted to a “textbook physical taking,” overturning an earlier district court decision that had rejected landowners’ claims. During the closures, deputies enforced the ordinance by physically removing residents from their own beachfronts and warning some that they could be arrested for stepping onto their privately owned sand.
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an executive order urging residents to comply with local restrictions, including beach closures. Days later, Walton County Commissioners voted to close public beaches but noted publicly that they lacked the legal authority to bar owners from their private beachfronts.
Despite this acknowledgment, commissioners reversed course in early April and passed a sweeping temporary closure that banned access to all beaches—public and private—from April 2 to April 30. The enforcement of that order led to multiple conflicts between deputies and homeowners. Several residents reported being told they would face arrest for using or even stepping onto their privately owned property.
The federal district court had previously ruled in favor of Walton County, concluding that the ordinance did not amount to either a physical or regulatory taking. However, the appeals court strongly disagreed, writing that the district court had misinterpreted established constitutional protections.
The panel—comprised of Judges Barbara Lagoa and Andrew Brasher, both appointed by President Donald Trump, and Judge Edward Carnes, appointed by President George H. W. Bush—emphasized that the temporary nature of the order and the landowners’ continued ability to sell their property did not diminish the severity of the intrusion.
“None of these points makes a difference,” the opinion states. “Walton County’s officers excluded the Landowners from their own property under threat of arrest… that is the very definition of a physical taking.”
Attorney Kent Safriet of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, who represented the affected property owners, said the ruling serves as a corrective for government overreach.
“Walton County will be held accountable for compensating these landowners for taking their property, along with covering their legal expenses incurred during the litigation,” Safriet said. “The court’s decision reaffirms that constitutional protections do not disappear during a public health crisis.”
Property owner Eric Wilhelm added that the outcome should serve as a warning to other local governments considering similar restrictions.
“The Commissioners ignored the advice of their own County Attorney, a decision that impacts the taxpayers of Walton County and could have been easily avoided,” Wilhelm said. “We’re grateful the court recognized our rights and the importance of protecting private property from government intrusion.”
The ruling clears the way for compensation claims and legal-cost recovery, though the county has not yet indicated whether it will pursue a further appeal or enter into settlement discussions with the landowners. The financial implications for local taxpayers could be substantial, depending on the number of affected owners and the duration of the land-use restrictions imposed in 2020.
The lawsuit challenges Walton County’s April 2020 emergency beach-closure ordinance, asserting violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling represents a significant development in property-rights law and sets precedent for how emergency public-health orders must account for private ownership rights.
Pro Communi Bono
St. Francis De Sales, Ora Pro Nobis!
Register or login with Mid Bay News and never get another pop up on our site!
