Case: Carlos Pena v. City of Los Angeles, California, No. 25-1163
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-04-09
Status: Pending
Question Presented: 1. Whether the government is exempt from liability under the Takings Clause when law enforcement officers intentionally destroy an innocent person's property in the course of attempting to apprehend a fugitive. 2. Whether the doctrine of “public necessity” is an exception to the Takings Clause.
On April 6, 2026, petitioner Carlos Pena, represented by Jeffrey Hallett Redfern, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to resolve whether the government must compensate property owners when law enforcement intentionally destroys their property while pursuing a suspect. A response from the City of Los Angeles is due May 11, 2026.
Pena sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, arguing the government must pay just compensation for property it intentionally destroys for a public purpose. The case comes from the Ninth Circuit.
The petition presents two distinct but related questions. First, whether intentional destruction by law enforcement during a fugitive apprehension triggers Takings Clause liability at all. Second, whether “public necessity” operates as a freestanding constitutional exception to the Clause’s just compensation requirement.
The Court has not directly addressed whether public necessity defeats a takings claim rather than merely informing the compensation analysis. That gap in doctrine gives this petition a plausible path to review. Property rights advocates and local governments alike have strong interests in a clear answer, since the rule affects how police operations are planned and how losses are allocated between individuals and the public treasury.