Can the United States seize, use, and compromise the claims and judgments of its citizens against a foreign state—a practice in international law known as espousal—while avoiding the Fifth Amendment's 'categorical' requirement of just compensation?"

QUESTION PRESENTED Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015), holds that the Fifth Amendment imposes a categorical duty upon the government to pay just compensation when it uses its power of eminent domain to take title to “private property.” The government took possession of petitioners’ private property—a judgment against Libya and the underlying entitlement to monetary relief—and then “settled” the claims and judgment as part of an agreement with Libya. The Federal Circuit declined to follow Horne’s categorical rule and, in denying just compensation, analyzed the taking as a regulatory impairment under Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of N.Y., 438 U.S. 104 (1978). The Question presented is: Can the United States seize, use, and compromise the claims and judgments of its citizens against a foreign state—a practice in international law known as “espousal”—while avoiding the Fifth Amendment’s “categorical” requirement of just compensation?