## Facts

- Landowners and nearby residents sued grass seed growers, alleging smoke from post-harvest field burning drifted onto their properties and into their homes, causing harm.
- The complaint (filed June 2002) sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, asserting nuisance and trespass.
- While the case was pending, Idaho enacted a statute providing immunity from nuisance and trespass liability for field burning conducted in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
- The statute purported to apply retroactively, potentially affecting already-filed nuisance and trespass claims based on compliant burning.
- Plaintiffs challenged the statute as unconstitutional, arguing it eliminated accrued causes of action and remedies and thus violated constitutional protections, including takings and due process.
- The district court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied, reasoning it effected a taking of plaintiffs’ vested property rights in their causes of action and remedies, and refused to apply immunity.
- The farmers appealed the constitutional ruling to the Idaho Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a retroactive statutory immunity for compliant field burning from nuisance and trespass liability constitutes an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs’ purported vested property rights in pending tort causes of action and remedies.
2. Whether retroactively limiting or extinguishing accrued nuisance and trespass claims violates due process and Idaho constitutional guarantees of access to courts/redress for injuries.
3. Whether, and to what extent, the statutory immunity can be applied to pending suits consistent with constitutional limits.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling that the statute worked an unconstitutional taking.
- The Court held the legislature may modify or abolish common-law causes of action and grant targeted immunities as a matter of policy, including in nuisance and trespass, when linked to regulatory compliance.
- The Court rejected the view that a pending nuisance or trespass cause of action is “property” for takings purposes in the same manner as land ownership or a final judgment.
- The Court construed the statute narrowly to avoid serious constitutional concerns arising from extreme retroactive application.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s interpretation and constitutional analysis, permitting farmers to assert immunity when statutory conditions were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- There is no vested right in the continued existence of a particular common-law cause of action or in a specific remedy; the legislature may alter or abolish such claims subject to constitutional constraints.
- A statutory redefinition of what constitutes an actionable nuisance or trespass (including declaring certain compliant conduct non-actionable) is generally within legislative authority.
- Eliminating or limiting tort liability through legislation ordinarily implicates due process limits on retroactivity and arbitrariness rather than constituting a compensable taking of property.
- Retroactive legislation affecting pending claims should be construed, where reasonable, to avoid interpretations that would extinguish fully vested or adjudicated rights or otherwise raise serious constitutional problems.
- Access-to-courts and remedy guarantees restrict wholesale denial of redress, but allow legislative adjustment and channeling of remedies where consistent with legitimate governmental objectives.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s ability to grant immunity from nuisance and trespass for compliant agricultural field burning and rejected a takings-based challenge premised on pending tort claims as vested property, while limiting the statute’s retroactive reach through narrow construction and remanding for application of the immunity consistent with constitutional constraints.


Moon v. N. Idaho Farmers Ass’n, 96 P.3d 637 (Idaho 2004)