Atlanta’s ‘Urban Cowboy’ returns to federal court in battle over seized horses

The 11th Circuit’s revival of a yearslong legal battle between Atlanta’s “Urban Cowboy” and officials who seized his horses could set a new precedent for how federal courts look at the Fifth Amendment.ATLANTA (CN) — Atlanta’s “Urban Cowboy” on Tuesday asked the full bench of the 11th Circuit to take the reins in his lengthy legal battle with officials who seized his horses.The case raises a novel constitutional question: If the government takes your property but no law passed by Congress applies to your case, can you still sue for compensation under the Fifth Amendment, which protects against government abuse during legal proceedings?Attorneys for Brandon “Brannu” Fulton, nicknamed Atlanta’s “Urban Cowboy” for his tendency to ride through the city’s streets on horseback, say you can.Seven of Fulton’s horses were seized in 2017 by police when he was arrested and charged with 12 counts of felony cruelty to animals. Although the charges were dismissed the following year, the horses were never returned. They were instead placed at rescues or sold at auction.In the fight to secure payment for his horses, Fulton’s attorneys point to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which bars private property from being taken for public use without “just compensation.” They argue the clause provides a direct cause of action under which plaintiffs can sue even if no statutory vehicle to do so exists.“The founders might find surprising some of our modern takings jurisprudence, but this would not be surprising to them: that when the government takes someone’s horses, that person can go into court and ask the government to pay just compensation,” said attorney Brian Williams of Arnold Porter, representing Fulton.Fulton has asked the appellate court to revive his case after it was dismissed by a lower court and let him amend his lawsuit to sue Fulton County officials under the Fifth Amendment directly.The arguments drew mixed responses from the 13 judges of the en banc court. At least one judge appeared swayed by the idea that the takings clause could mandate a remedy on its own, while others, like U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, seemed skeptical.“Is it necessarily the case that every right vested by the Constitution brings with it a judicially enforceable right?” asked Newsom, an appointee of Donald Trump. “Is that, like, written in the stars?”Fulton sued the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, former Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard and Rebecca Guinn, the then-CEO of an animal welfare organization in charge of managing Fulton County Animal Services. He claimed his rights were violated when the value of the horses was not paid to him.Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy, an attorney representing the board of commissioners, agreed that the government has an obligation to pay just compensation when taking property for public use but called Williams’ arguments extreme.“This case is easy,” Norris said. “My friend concedes there’s adequate alternative ways to get just compensation, he just didn’t use them against the county under [Section] 1983 … There is no explicit cause of action under the takings clause itself.”Fulton initially sued under Section 1983, a federal law allowing plaintiffs to sue state and local governments when their official policies violate the Constitution. But a Georgia federal judge dismissed the case in 2021, ruling Fulton had not shown the county had a policy or practice in place that caused his constitutional injury.An 11th Circuit panel sided with Fulton in a 2025 decision and overturned the dismissal. But that ruling was itself tossed out when a majority of the court’s judges voted to rehear the case.On Tuesday, Newsom and U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum appeared at odds over whether the right to sue the federal government for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment had always existed.“Congress never vested [federal courts] with federal question jurisdiction until 1875,” Newsom said. “These claims proceeded in state court. To the extent that the federal government was involved at all, it was through Congress. So how can you say for 80 years everyone misunderstood this?”Rosenbaum, an appointee of Barack Obama, noted there was a “different model of enforcement” at the time of the country’s founding because Congress did not want to part with its authority.“When that became unworkable, Congress created the court of federal claims and federal question jurisdiction,” Rosenbaum said. “Why isn’t it simply the case that the right was always there, the question was how it would be enforced?”U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck suggested the appeals court may not even need to decide the issue. The Trump appointee insisted Fulton “has other available avenues” to get the compensation to which he’s entitled.Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor echoed Luck’s concerns. The George W. Bush appointee said if Fulton “failed to take advantage of other available remedies,” it was not incumbent on the court to “embark on this expedition of recognizing a constitutional right of action.”Tuesday’s en banc panel included six Trump appointees, three Obama appointees, two Joe Biden appointees, one George W. Bush appointee and one Ford appointee. The court did not signal when it will issue a decision in the appeal.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads