EDITORIAL: No COVID exception to takings clause

The COVID pandemic brought out the worst of the Nanny State in the name of public health. From school closures, to scientifically dubious social distancing and mask mandates, few elected officials missed a chance to exert their authority.

But five years later, there may finally be consequences for a handful of the worst offenders.

Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that a local Florida government abused its power when it imposed draconian restrictions on property owners during the pandemic. The result could cost taxpayers there millions of dollars.

The case originated in Walton County, Florida, where officials in March 2020 ordered that all beaches — private and public — be closed in an effort to stop the spread of COVID. The edict, issued at the height of panic, made it a criminal offense for people to access a beach. This included private owners with beachfront property.

As George Washington University law professor Ilya Somin wrote this week, this was different than simply limiting how these landowners could use their own property. The ordinance, which was in effect for two months, prohibited them from using it at all.

Meanwhile, many businesses were allowed to stay open.

In response, several landowners sued the county, arguing, among other things, that the government had committed a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the county used draconian tactics to enforce the emergency ordinance, including parking police vehicles at the entrances of private beaches and confronting some owners with arrest threats.

While lower courts ruled for the county, the 11th Circuit stood tall for the Bill of Rights. “There is no COVID exception to the Takings Clause,” the court concluded.

“Under our usual standards, the taking at issue here is clear: Walton County barred the landowners from entering and remaining on their property,” the ruling explained, “and Walton County subjected the landowners’ property to repeated physical invasions to enforce that exclusion. Applying the ‘traditional legal test associated with the right at issue,’ we hold that the landowners are entitled to ‘just compensation.’”

Amen. The case highlights the absurdities of so many pandemic-era restrictions. As Mr. Somin points out, how was it any more dangerous for a family to use their own private beach than to simply watch TV together in the comfort of their own home? The logic is nonexistent, but all too familiar to those who lived through these times. Remember being forced to wear a mask upon entering a restaurant, but then being allowed to take it off to eat and drink?

Many of those behind such idiocies have faced few, if any consequences. It’s encouraging to see one local government pay a price for its heavy-handedness.