Public use · West Fork Creek · October 16, 2026

Before “How Much?” Comes “Can They Take It?”

A Louisiana Supreme Court victory gives West Fork Creek landowners an important reason to examine the public-use question.

When a proposed transmission line reaches your property, the conversation can quickly become about money. How wide is the right-of-way? What is an acre worth? What will the company pay?

Those questions matter. But there is another question that belongs at the beginning:

Does the company have the legal right to take this property for this use?

On March 6, 2026, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a landowner’s successful challenge to an attempted expropriation. The dispute was about a port and an LNG development. Its central lesson reaches anyone facing a demand to surrender property: public purpose is a legal requirement that can be tested in court.

The landowner who challenged the taking itself

In Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Tuan Nguyen, No. 2025-C-00827, a public port authority sought approximately 29 acres of Nguyen’s land for a project involving Venture Global LNG. The port intended to own the property and lease it to the private company for its exclusive development and use.

The port pointed to economic growth, jobs, energy security, and other benefits. It deposited $441,600 as its proposed compensation.

Nguyen challenged whether the taking served a constitutionally valid public purpose. He prevailed. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the expropriation suit without prejudice.

The port’s public status and proposed ownership did not resolve the issue. The Court examined what the property would actually be used for. On the undisputed facts, it would serve as a private port for the company’s own goods, rather than property dedicated to use as a public port.

A development promise is not a substitute for public purpose

The Court applied Louisiana’s constitutional protections adopted after the United States Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. Louisiana’s Constitution excludes economic development, increased tax revenue, and incidental public benefits from the public-purpose determination addressed in the opinion.

A project can promise substantial economic benefits and still fail the legal test for taking someone’s land. The port’s claimed authority and anticipated benefits did not cure the missing constitutional public purpose.

Nor was the landowner required to accept the port’s allegations as established facts. The Court rejected the argument that his challenge should be decided solely on the pleadings with the port’s allegations accepted as true. The applicable procedure called for a contested hearing.

Why West Fork Creek landowners should pay attention

For owners affected by the proposed West Fork Creek transmission project, the practical lesson is to examine the claimed right to expropriate before treating a right-of-way offer as the only issue left to discuss.

That examination should address concrete questions:

• Who would bring the expropriation, and what law authorizes that entity to do so?
• What use would the proposed facilities actually serve, and what evidence supports the claimed public use?
• What project approvals, regional transmission determinations, customer arrangements, and engineering records bear on that claim?
• Why are the particular property rights and extent of the proposed taking needed?

These questions require documents and evidence. A project description or a prediction of economic growth does not answer all of them.

An electric transmission case requires its own analysis

Nguyen involved a public port authority. An electric utility’s expropriation claim must be analyzed under the constitutional and statutory rules that apply to that utility and its proposed facilities. Louisiana Revised Statutes 19:2(A)(7), for example, contains specific qualifications for electric-utility expropriations.

Serving a major private customer does not, by itself, establish that a transmission project lacks public use. The facilities’ actual function, the applicable law, and the supporting record matter. Nguyen does not decide the legality of West Fork Creek. It provides a powerful reminder that the right to take property deserves scrutiny, rather than assumption.

Protect the challenge while there is time to make it

Nguyen used the motion-to-dismiss procedure governing the port’s quick-take proceeding. That statute imposed a 20-day deadline and provided that failure to meet its filing and service requirements would waive defenses other than compensation.

That is the deadline discussed in his case—not a universal deadline for every taking. If you receive an expropriation petition or other legal papers, have the applicable procedure and deadline reviewed immediately. Continuing to negotiate over price does not necessarily preserve your defenses.

Your land deserves more than an automatic yes

A right-of-way can affect how you farm, build, use, and pass down your property. Understanding the right to take is part of protecting those interests, alongside obtaining full compensation for a lawful taking.

If your property may be affected by West Fork Creek, contact Winch Law Firm to discuss the proposed taking and your rights. Call 504-500-1899 or request a property-rights consultation. Bring the route map, right-of-way proposal, offer, and any court papers.

The first conversation should leave room for both questions: What is fair compensation—and has the legal right to take been established?

Sources: Louisiana Supreme Court opinion, March 6, 2026, majority opinion pp. 1–9 (facts and disposition, pp. 1–3 and 9; procedure, pp. 2–4; constitutional analysis, pp. 5–9); La. R.S. 19:2(A)(7). The discussion of West Fork Creek identifies issues for evaluation; the Supreme Court did not adjudicate that project in this case.

Affected by the proposed corridor? Explore our West Fork Creek / Project Omega resources.