Benton Housing Associates Limited Partnership sued the cities of Benton and Bryant and Saline County, Arkansas, in August 2024, claiming that various government actions caused flooding to apartment buildings it owns. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction compelling each defendant to fund its proportionate share of remedial steps to stop ongoing and future flooding, citing health and safety concerns for residents and employees. The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inverse condemnation and unconstitutional taking, due process violations, strict liability, and nuisance.
Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the motion on February 19, 2026, following a July 14, 2025 hearing and post-hearing briefing. The ruling rests on the Supreme Court's holding in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 588 U.S. 180 (2019), which states that because the federal and nearly all state governments provide just compensation remedies to property owners who have suffered a taking, equitable relief is generally unavailable, and that as long as an adequate provision for obtaining just compensation exists, there is no basis to enjoin the government's action effecting a taking. The court noted that just compensation remedies are available here through both federal and state law.
The plaintiff argued that injunctive relief remains available when the harm is ongoing, relying on Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Williams, 64 F.4th 932 (8th Cir. 2023), which addressed injunctions against repetitive future takings under Minnesota law. Judge Moody distinguished that precedent, noting that the plaintiff here is suing over approximately seven flooding events across a nine-year period — not the kind of repeated and continuous unconstitutional takings that would render just compensation inadequate.
The court also cited the Tenth Circuit's decision in Knellinger v. Young, 134 F.4th 1034 (10th Cir. 2025), which held that because plaintiffs may pursue a suit for compensation under § 1983, they have an adequate remedy at law and equitable relief is therefore unavailable — reinforcing the cross-circuit consensus on the point.
The court indicated it will enter a final scheduling order setting the matter for trial.