Real Property, Takings Of

• Pages: 82-83

Page 82

Zoya Atamirzayeva (Plaintiff) alleges that, in response to a request by the U.S. Embassy, the local government evicted her from her property next to the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan. The Embassy had raised security concerns with the local authorities who then destroyed her property. While the Plaintiff owned the buildings that included her cafeteria, however, the Republic of Uzbekistan owned the land on which they sat.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Uzbekistan, sued the United States (Defendant) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the alleged taking of property she owned in Uzbekistan. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Plaintiff's claim; it held that Plaintiff had no claim under the Fifth Amendment because she is a foreign national and the situs of her property was in a foreign country. Moreover, she had failed to plead that she had a connection to the U.S.

This appeal followed. The sole question is whether a foreign citizen with no connections to U.S. has a right to just compensation for a taking of property that occurred in a foreign country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms.

The Court then explains its reasoning. "The Supreme Court has long taken the view that the Constitution is subject to territorial limitations. [...] By the constitution a government is ordained and established 'for the United States of America,' and not for countries outside their limits...Cook v. U.S., 138 U.S. 157, 181 (1891). The constitution can have no operation in another country." [Slip op. 3].

Page 83

"[In] Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), a plurality of the Court adopted a more expansive view of the extraterritorial application of constitutional protections...the Court...held that, as U.S. civilians being tried for capital off enses, the two women were constitutionally entitled to civilian trials." [Slip op. 5].

"The plurality did not, however, adopt an unlimited view of the extraterritorial scope of the constitutional provisions at issue in that case. Instead, it relied on the U.S. citizenship of the habeas corpus Defendants in Reid" [Slip op. 6].

"[Plaintiff] urges that we interpret [Reid] to mean that federal officials are constrained by the Fourth Amendment wherever and against whomever they act. But the holding of Reid stands for no such sweeping proposition: it decided that U.S. citizens stationed abroad...