Litigation results in payments for southeast SD landowners along rail-to-trail route
Scenes from the old Napa-to-Platte rail line. (Courtesy of Friends of the Tabor to Platte Rail to Trail).
Seven landowners in Bon Homme and Charles Mix counties will receive a total of nearly $128,000 from the federal government after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found their land was taken without compensation to make way for a proposed hiking and biking trail.
The ruling stems from a claim for compensation filed under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use, a process known as eminent domain. Attorneys from the St. Louis firm Lewis Rice represented the landowners.
'If the government takes 10 feet or 10 acres, you should be rightly compensated,' said attorney Meghan Largent.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
At issue is a 24-mile stretch of former railroad corridor between Tyndall and Ravinia in southeast South Dakota. On Aug. 18, 2023, the federal Surface Transportation Board issued a notice allowing the removal of the tracks and conversion of the corridor into a public trail. The stretch is part of a larger proposed rail-to-trail project, converting a 75-mile portion of the old Napa-to-Platte rail line to a trail from Tabor to Platte.
A spokesperson with the transportation board declined to comment.
Some sections of the rail-to-trail land are owned by the state. However, Largent said some sections within the 24-mile stretch are under easements, which are agreements allowing the crossing of someone else's land. She successfully argued that the purpose of the easement can't be changed without just compensation to the landowners.
She said the $128,000 will be paid out of a federal judgment fund, and efforts to create the trail will continue regardless of the lawsuits.
Robert Foley is with Friends of the Tabor to Platte Rail to Trail.
'No, it doesn't really doesn't impact the project,' he said.
Foley said the project is moving forward. He said the group is raising its final $5,000 of funding for a $250,000 feasibility study. He said the study should be completed by late fall.
Largent said her analysis shows another 120 landowners along the corridor qualify for compensation. They have until Aug. 18, 2029, to file a claim. The firm is already pursuing two more cases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Litigation results in payments for southeast SD landowners along rail-to-trail route
Scenes from the old Napa-to-Platte rail line. (Courtesy of Friends of the Tabor to Platte Rail to Trail). Seven landowners in Bon Homme and Charles Mix counties will receive a total of nearly $128,000 from the federal government after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found their land was taken without compensation to make way for a proposed hiking and biking trail. The ruling stems from a claim for compensation filed under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use, a process known as eminent domain. Attorneys from the St. Louis firm Lewis Rice represented the landowners. 'If the government takes 10 feet or 10 acres, you should be rightly compensated,' said attorney Meghan Largent. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX At issue is a 24-mile stretch of former railroad corridor between Tyndall and Ravinia in southeast South Dakota. On Aug. 18, 2023, the federal Surface Transportation Board issued a notice allowing the removal of the tracks and conversion of the corridor into a public trail. The stretch is part of a larger proposed rail-to-trail project, converting a 75-mile portion of the old Napa-to-Platte rail line to a trail from Tabor to Platte. A spokesperson with the transportation board declined to comment. Some sections of the rail-to-trail land are owned by the state. However, Largent said some sections within the 24-mile stretch are under easements, which are agreements allowing the crossing of someone else's land. She successfully argued that the purpose of the easement can't be changed without just compensation to the landowners. She said the $128,000 will be paid out of a federal judgment fund, and efforts to create the trail will continue regardless of the lawsuits. Robert Foley is with Friends of the Tabor to Platte Rail to Trail. 'No, it doesn't really doesn't impact the project,' he said. Foley said the project is moving forward. He said the group is raising its final $5,000 of funding for a $250,000 feasibility study. He said the study should be completed by late fall. Largent said her analysis shows another 120 landowners along the corridor qualify for compensation. They have until Aug. 18, 2029, to file a claim. The firm is already pursuing two more cases.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Yahoo
Due process is not limited to citizens, contrary to Nancy Mace's claim
The Trump administration and its supporters could still use a refresher on due process. I previously explained why White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller was wrong to suggest the constitutional protection is limited to citizens. Now it appears that Nancy Mace could use that lesson, too. Amid a series of social media posts apparently intended to be provocative, the Republican U.S. representative from South Carolina wrote Tuesday night, 'Due process is for citizens.' The implication being that noncitizens don't get that protection. That's incorrect. The constitutional amendments that provide for due process apply not only to the narrower category of 'citizens' but to the broader category of 'person[s].' Indeed, the Republican-majority Supreme Court recently acknowledged this principle. Approvingly quoting from a prior precedent on the matter, it noted, ''It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings.' So while it's true that due process is for citizens, it's not limited to citizens. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Yahoo
Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees. In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem's directive to end the agreement 'constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers.' It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious," she added. 'Today's court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. 'The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS's attack on TSA officers' First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members' rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members' rights against unlawful union busting.' Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis declined to comment on the judge's ruling, according to Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office. AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem's directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted. AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo. Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem's move was retaliation and a violation of the union's First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The administration has made it clear that if you don't disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,' Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours. Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles. Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration. 'Isn't this a pattern that you see?' Pechman asked Kipnis. 'Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don't, don't have those restrictions. Isn't this the pattern that the White House has set up?" Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn't signal a violation of the workers' First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship. But Pechman wasn't convinced. Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and 'they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,' she said. What has changed is this administration's attitude, she said. To that, Kipnis replied: 'Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. ... But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.' Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, 'but to abruptly cancel doesn't seem well reasoned, so I'm having trouble with that." She also noted, "But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it's made is harder to accept.' In Monday's order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides. 'While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,' Pechman said. 'They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.'
