Devillier v. Texas
601 U.S. 285 · Decided April 16, 2024 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Devillier v. Texas was decided on April 16, 2024 unanimously (9–0). The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 601 U.S. 285 · 144 S. Ct. 938 · 218 L. Ed. 2d 268 · 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1812
- Docket number
- 22-913
- Decided
- April 16, 2024
- Argued
- January 16, 2024
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Clarence Thomas
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Majority | |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority | |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Majority | |
| Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | Majority |
Full case caption
Devillier v. Texas
SCDB identifiers: case 2023-029, docket 2023-029-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
- Culley v. Marshall
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Pung v. Isabella County
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error