Vicki Baker’s situation appears more favorable than that of several others in similar circumstances, but reaching this point required an exceptionally lengthy process.
How long should it take an innocent person to obtain confirmation that they will be compensated after the government destroys their home? Should, of course, is a subjective question. Some victims like Baker will never receive that confirmation.
For Baker, the confirmation arrived today from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, almost six years after her house in McKinney, Texas, was razed by a SWAT team during the pursuit of a fugitive who had barricaded himself inside.
The ensuing scene was chaotic. As I described in 2021:
Prior to the SWAT showdown, Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, gave officers a key to the home, as well as a garage door opener and the back gate code. Agents took a different route. They smashed six windows. Instead of using the code, they maneuvered a BearCat armored vehicle through her fencing. Instead of using the clicker, they detonated explosives to blow off the garage entryway. And instead of using the key, they drove right on through her front door.
Baker’s insurer declined to cover the damage because it was caused by the government—an ordinary exclusion. But the government argued it bore no responsibility either, contending she did not meet its definition of a victim. “I’ve lost everything,” Baker told me more than five years ago. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without worrying about how I’m going to cover my regular bills.”
The government’s legal strategy is a notably common one. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment promises “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use. Public safety is, after all, a societal benefit, a burden typically borne by the whole rather than by an individual. To avoid paying such claims, some municipalities assert that this constitutional pledge is not absolute, especially when property is destroyed in the course of exercising police power.
Countless property owners without fault have failed to overcome that argument in court. Baker, by contrast, managed to secure a rare win—if one can call it that—after negotiating what can be described as a federal-courts–themed journey through a gauntlet of legal maneuvers.
What did Baker’s legal journey look like, exactly? Her home lay in ruins in July 2020. After the government refused to compensate her, she filed suit in March 2021. The city attempted to block the suit; a federal judge chose not to dismiss it. In 2022, a jury awarded roughly $60,000, a development that appeared to be a major victory. However, in 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that her claim was barred because police acted out of “necessity during an active emergency.” In 2024, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas concluded she could recover damages—$60,000 plus interest—under the Texas Constitution rather than the U.S. Constitution. The government naturally appealed, bringing us to 2026.
So Baker, now in her 80s, will finally receive her payout. Her situation is more fortunate in that respect than several others. Yet one cannot help but wonder how much public money was spent defending this lawsuit instead of honoring the judgment issued nearly four years ago.
