Chris Edwards and Mark Wigley File Amicus Brief in Federal Circuit Rails-to-Trails Case

Ward and Smith attorneys Chris Edwards and Mark Wigley recently co-authored an amicus brief filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of a coalition of state Farm Bureaus and property rights organizations, urging the court to adopt a rule that fully compensates landowners when the federal government converts railroad corridors into public trails under the “Rails to Trails” program adopted as part of the National Trails System Act.

The brief was filed in Kotis Associates, LLC v. United States, a case centering on a railroad corridor running through commercial property in Greensboro, North Carolina, that was converted into a public trail under the “railbanking” process created by Congress in 1983. Among other important issues, the case asks a critical question: when the government takes private property through a Trails Act easement, is compensation measured by the full bundle of legal rights the landowner loses, or only by the specific uses the trail sponsor has chosen to restrict at a given moment?

The trial court sided with the property owner, recognizing that the easement effectively eliminated all meaningful property rights in the corridor and awarding a substantial judgment. In particular, the trial court determined that, even if the trail sponsor did not currently intend to use the entire easement, it could change its mind and do so at any time. The federal government appealed.

Edwards and Wigley filed the brief on behalf of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Illinois Agricultural Association, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon Farm Bureau, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, and Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, along with Mountain States Legal Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation, in support of the property owner.

The brief argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision in the case will have far-reaching consequences well beyond the properties at issue in Greensboro. Because railroad rights-of-way so often run through agricultural land, a legacy of the nation’s nineteenth-century rail expansion across flat, open terrain, farmers and rural landowners will disproportionately feel the impact of whatever precedent the court sets. Thousands of miles of the nation’s rail network remain eligible for future railbanking conversions, the brief notes, meaning the stakes extend to property owners across the country.

“This case is about whether the Takings Clause means what it says,” said Wigley. “When the government takes private property, it has to pay a fair price for all of it, not just the particular collection of property rights the trail sponsor is choosing to use at a given time.”

The brief draws on firsthand accounts from farmers whose land is burdened by trail easements to illustrate what the legal loss looks like in practice. Trail corridors can divide a single parcel in two, make livestock facilities inaccessible, expose crops and animals to trespassers, and create persistent liability exposure—burdens that exist regardless of how actively the trail sponsor enforces its rights at any given moment. The brief also documents instances in which sponsors have exercised the right to eject landowners’ improvements and even charged rent to allow existing structures to remain.

“Farmers whose land is encumbered by a trail easement don’t experience some theoretical loss; the taking prevents them from putting their property to its best use,” said Edwards. “The law should reflect that reality.”

On the merits, the brief argues that the history and tradition of American property law confirm that when the government “takes” land via an easement, that taking must be measured by the entire group of legal burdens imposed and not just the moment-to-moment disruption in use. Under the English common law tradition carried forward by Founding-era scholars, the brief explains, an easement has always been defined by the legal rights it confers, not by how those rights happen to be exercised at any particular moment. The brief contends that the principle has been applied consistently in condemnation cases across federal and state courts and argues that the Federal Circuit should apply it here as well.

Wigley and Edwards were joined in the representation by Kathryn D. Valois of Pacific Legal Foundation, which has litigated numerous landmark property rights cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.