Background
The 2017 Chetco Bar Fire began with a lightning strike in Oregon’s Kalmiopsis Wilderness and ultimately burned 191,197 acres, including private property. Three homeowner families and two timber companies alleged that the Forest Service caused their losses by managing the fire for natural-resource benefits instead of promptly suppressing it and by setting backfires that reached or were lit on their properties.
The United States moved for summary judgment, principally arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove causation. It also sought judgment on the theory that the Forest Service allowed the fire to burn for resource-management purposes and on claims involving backfires set after August 21, 2017.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to the government on the resource-benefit theory. Although the court had Tucker Act jurisdiction over the constitutional takings claims, it held on the merits that the alleged failure to suppress a naturally caused fire was government inaction, not the affirmative government action required for a taking. It also found that the record did not support the plaintiffs’ contention that the Forest Service managed the fire to obtain natural-resource benefits, noting that the agency began suppression efforts within 90 minutes after the fire was reported and that the plaintiffs had mischaracterized portions of the record.
The court deferred ruling on claims arising from Forest Service firing operations conducted August 18 through 20 around Packer’s Cabin, the Chetco River Inn, and the Wilderness Retreat. Because the Federal Circuit was considering materially identical causation arguments in McDonough Family Land, LP v. United States, the court declined for now to decide which causation standard governs those claims. It granted summary judgment only on inverse-condemnation claims stemming from backfires lit between September and November 2017, which the plaintiffs had conceded, and postponed the December 2026 trial.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims had Tucker Act jurisdiction, but the alleged failure to suppress the wildfire could not establish a taking because it was inaction rather than an affirmative government act.
- The court found no genuine factual dispute supporting the claim that the Forest Service used the Chetco Bar Fire to pursue natural-resource benefits.
- The viability of claims concerning the August 18–20 backfires remains unresolved pending Federal Circuit guidance on causation, while summary judgment was entered on inverse-condemnation claims arising from September–November backfires.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes jurisdiction over a Takings Clause claim from whether the claimant can prove a taking on the merits. A landowner may invoke the Court of Federal Claims’ Tucker Act jurisdiction, yet still lose if the challenged conduct is fundamentally a failure to act rather than an affirmative government action.
The deferred August backfire claims also highlight an unsettled causation question in wildfire inverse-condemnation litigation: whether plaintiffs must show that their property would not have burned absent the government’s entire firefighting response, or whether a different analysis applies to discrete government-set fires. The Federal Circuit’s decision in McDonough may determine how those remaining claims proceed.