It depends. A recent decision out of the Federal Circuit tackled this very issue, and the court’s decision strongly suggests that a taking could arise under the right circumstances. (Filler v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2015) Case No. 2014-5117.) As you probably already guessed by my use of the phrase “strongly suggests,” both the lower court and the Federal Circuit in this case found that the plaintiff’s challenge did not present the “right circumstances.”

After sustaining a work-related injury, an employee of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service visited the plaintiff to receive treatment. Sometime after receiving treatment, this federal employee posted a number of comments to a public message board using a private account. The federal employee, however, posted these comments from a government computer during normal working hours. Learning of these comments, the plaintiff filed an action for common law defamation and interference with prospective business advantage, as well as a claim for inverse condemnation.

The lower court and the Federal Circuit rejected plaintiff’s claim for inverse condemnation, finding that despite the fact that the federal employee made the comments on a governmental computer during normal working hours, the federal employee was acting “for her independent purpose of conveying her personal views on the efficacy and advisability of the treatment,” and not in an official governmental capacity. Accordingly, because there must be an authorized government action in order for there to be a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment, the courts found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for inverse condemnation.

Notably, the lower court also found that plaintiff’s medical license did not, as a matter of law, constitute a compensable property interest for purposes of the Takings Clause. The Federal Circuit, however, expressly declined to address this issue.