A Texas family that has owned land in Freeport since 1940 is preparing to file a new legal appeal after a state trial court ruled against them in an ongoing fight over eminent domain. A Texas trial court granted summary judgment against the Marshall family and other landowners in Freeport’s historically Black East End neighborhood. The ruling allows Port Freeport to continue taking private property, where a cold-storage fruit warehouse for a private company has already been built next to their land. With support from the public-interest law firm Institute for Justice, the Marshall family plans to challenge the ruling before the Texas Court of Appeals. The legal team argues that the port authority is using public taking powers to support private commercial projects instead of a valid public purpose. “The Texas Constitution is clear on this matter and we plan on making that clear before the Texas Court of Appeals,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern in a statement released by the organization. “The government cannot just use eminent domain to take the Marshalls’ land simply because the Port thought it could. The Constitution demands more.”
Decades of family ownership in the East End
The dispute goes back to 1940, when the Marshall family first bought land in the East End section of Freeport. The neighborhood was established in the 1920s and was the only part of the coastal town where Black residents were legally allowed to live. Over the years, generations of the Marshall family built homes, ran small businesses, and raised children on these properties. But as shipping and maritime trade grew along the Gulf Coast, Port Freeport began buying land across the East End for industrial development. By 2020, Port Freeport had started formal eminent domain proceedings to take the Marshall family’s remaining land. The port authority said the property was needed for maritime infrastructure projects. While property owners went to court to protect their deeds, construction continued nearby. Port authorities approved a temperature-controlled fruit warehouse built specifically to serve a private agricultural importer.
Warehouse expansion sparks constitutional fight
Lawyers for the Marshall family say using public condemnation powers to support commercial buildings crosses a constitutional line. Under state and federal law, government entities may use eminent domain only when land is intended for direct public use, such as roads, public utilities, or civic infrastructure. During the early stages of the case, court filings showed that Port Freeport planned to give seized land parcels to private corporate tenants. Public-interest lawyers argue that taking property from private owners and giving it to other private companies violates Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. Property rights advocates say this follows a pattern seen in earlier eminent domain disputes. In those cases, public agencies used economic development arguments to replace established residential neighborhoods with commercial facilities. Earlier in the case, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of East End landowners. It rejected an earlier effort by Port Freeport to take parcels without clear public development plans. However, the latest trial court summary judgment put the land titles at risk again, leading to an immediate notice of appeal.
Broader legal precedent for private property
The appeal could have wider effects on property rights across Texas. Public-interest legal advocates say that if port authorities can take decades-old residential and family-owned lots for commercial storage facilities, small landowners near city industrial areas could have little protection. The Institute for Justice has handled similar property rights cases across the United States. These include ongoing disputes in Georgia and New York, where local authorities sought to take private parcels for commercial reuse. For the Marshall family, the case is a fight to protect eight decades of family history in a neighborhood built by their ancestors during a time of enforced segregation. The case will now move to the Texas Court of Appeals. Judges will decide whether the port authority’s plans for economic expansion meet the Texas Constitution’s requirements for taking private land for public use.